Unions want more time to resolve disputed issues

The General Workers` Union and Union Haddiema Maghqudin yesterday appealed to the government to give the social partners more time to resolve the disputed issues in the employment and industrial relations bill.

The bill, being debated in committee stage in parliament, was the theme of this year`s Malta Employers` Association annual general conference at the Radisson SAS Bay Point Resort in St Julian`s.

GWU general secretary Tony Zarb said unions could not operate under the threat of legal sanctions.

The union was attending the parliamentary debate on the bill but they could not do much to affect its outcome, he said.

Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi, replying to comments in his final address, said the social partners had shown their ability to debate and now had to show their ability to take decisions.

Dr Gonzi pointed out that after he had been presented with proposals following the publication of the White Paper on the bill, he had attended a conference organised by the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development to discuss the proposals.

"But on that day, the employers decided to leave the conference en masse after a newspaper published their proposals on the bill.

"Notwithstanding my endeavours to make the employers change their mind and stay on, they stuck to their decision and left," the minister said.

Mr Zarb had compared the bill to a suit marred by stains which tarnished the public image of the social partners.

Replying to this comment, the minister said: "Maybe the suit was too small for the unions and the size did not fit employers either, but it fitted the country`s needs. I designed the suit to fit the country`s needs.

"My terms of reference were to put the country`s needs first. That is why the suit does not fit any of us exactly."

Dr Gonzi said the bill should not be seen in a vacuum but in a wider context: as a link in the chain of development of the country`s economic and social framework.

Referring to criticism levelled by the two unions, that the bill was proposing to give the prime minister the option to add to the list of essential services, Dr Gonzi said he did not think it was wise to remove this option, but he was still prepared to leave the law as it was and not give the prime minister this option.

Commenting on other points raised by other speakers, Dr Gonzi said the bill was proposing the use of the industrial tribunal even for government employees if negotiations failed at the Joint Negotiating Council.

"At the end of the day, what matters is our ability to turn the new law into an opportunity for the benefit of the community," the minister said.

Earlier, Mr Zarb said he disagreed with General Retailers and Traders Association director general Vince Farrugia, who had likened the unions to a lion and employers to a mouse.

"Employers are our partners. The bill is like a suit that we have to tailor together. But let`s clean it of its stains and have a law that will make us all proud," Mr Zarb said.

Mr Farrugia had pointed out that 24,000 out of 26,000 small enterprises in Malta employed only a small number of workers.

"Yet the self-employed were not recognised in the bill. If a number of self-employed had an issue with, let`s say, a supplier, why shouldn`t they have the right to take the same action enjoyed by trade unions? Otherwise, how could the self-employed safeguard their rights?"

UHM general secretary Gejtu Vella said the government had erred by deciding to drop the consultation process and press ahead with the bill after the social partners had presented their proposals.

The government had not yet, it seemed, understood the objective and aim of the MCESD.

"The government has decided to debate the bill in parliament and the unions attend the sitting but achieve practically nothing."

Prof. Godfrey Baldacchino, director of the Workers` Participation Development Centre at the University of Malta, said that a lot of details in the White Paper had been left out of the bill.

These details, for example, related to parental leave and how employers were to consult workers on changes in ownership.

The government had not said how it would incorporate these proposals in the bill.

What type of flexibility in the labour market was the government expecting, he asked. The government had taken care to safeguard its interests as an employer.

"The aim of the bill should not be to deny the right to strike to workers providing an essential service, but that strike action will not be abused as in the case of the sympathy strike.

"The bill does not consider a scenario where an employer has to deal with three or four trade unions. The bill also lacks details about joint union recognition.

"A whole fuss had been kicked up about the definition of `worker`, yet the definition of `employer` is extremely vague," Prof. Baldacchino charged.

"Neither are the practices of vacation leave, job sharing, and time credits included in the bill."

The Labour Party`s social policy spokesman, Karl Chircop, said the bill had arrived at a crucial point at which certain details needed to be clarified.

The former Conditions of Employment Regulations Act and the Industrial Relations Act had been amalgamated into one and to a certain extent that was a positive step, he said.

"The bill includes clauses that are not clearly defined. Another point is that clause 48 gives absolute powers to the prime minister to change the previous 47 articles, so what is the point of holding discussions with social partners if there is this overriding clause?" Dr Chircop asked.

The conference was opened by MEA president Joseph Delia who said the bill should not undermine the country`s competitive edge.

The MEA had recognised the need for Malta`s laws to be brought in line with those of the EU and International Labour Organisation.

"The MEA feels that the discussion on the bill should not be turned into a spectacle as the media has done, portraying the debate as if it were a cock fight," Mr Delia said.