Ex-GWU employees point accusing finger

A number of former employees have accused the General Workers' Union of failing to practise what it preaches.

They cited various examples to back their claims.

For instance, they said, while the union always publicly criticised early retirement schemes, Union Press employees were offered early retirement schemes over the past few months. A number of those who took up the offer have still not been paid the money owed to them from the schemes, they said.

The general manager of Untours was also offered an early retirement scheme and had no alternative but to accept it.

Workers at Ritescan, another union-owned company that closed down because of lack of orders, were offered a job with Union Press with salaries and grades inferior to those they enjoyed at Ritescan.

The GWU always insisted and succeeded in protecting the conditions of workers who were shifted from one company to another, as it had done in the case of Drydocks workers who were transferred to Industrial Projects and Services Limited. The GWU did the same for Metco, IPSE and MDC workers who were not absorbed by Malta Enterprise and was trying to do the same for PBS employees who would not remain on the company's books.

The former GWU employees said five out of seven Ritescan employees did not accept the inferior conditions offered to them and chose early retirement. One employee was engaged with Union Press with the difference in salary being forked out by the GWU. Another employee was still contesting and did not accept the job offered to him at a lower salary with Union Press and has been on special leave with pay for the past four months. His salary is being paid by the union.

The former Drydocks workers' section secretary, Alfred Cassar, who had to resign following pressure by the executive committee, was out of a job for a good two months after his resignation. Mr Cassar had been "on paid leave".

Sources said the union was obliged to employ those officials who were elected and who had to leave for reasons other than breach of the disciplinary code. The sources recalled that not too long ago, Peter Paul Barbara was informed by the union that the post of EU desk officer he used to occupy had been abolished.

The union was also faced with a situation involving allegations of discrimination in overtime at Cargo Handling Company, which it owns. The court had ruled there was discrimination when women were not allocated overtime and the company had attempted to strike an out-of-court settlement with a number of women who claimed they were discriminated against by not being given overtime because they were women. However, the lump sum offered was deemed to be "paltry" and was rejected by the workers in question early this month. The amount of financial compensation will now have to be determined by the court.

When The Times contacted the GWU for a comment on the above issues, a spokesman asked for question to be put in writing. A set of eight question was duly faxed to union general secretary Tony Zarb on February 22.

In a letter dated February 25, the union's information officer said he was "forwarding the response to your set of questions". However, the third paragraph in the three-paragraph letter read: "Also, I am directed by the union's administration to inform you that our response to your questions is being communicated to you simply to clarify your queries on the various issues mentioned. In no way are we authorising you to publish the information given as the information is of a commercial and sensitive nature. If your intention is to publish an article/s on any of the points, then we are inviting you to discuss this matter further with us."

Last week, The Times again contacted the GWU over the issue and, since Mr Zarb was away at the time, the union spokesman said an appointment would be fixed for The Times to discuss the issue with Mr Zarb on his return.

To-date, an appointment has still to be set.