GWU action blacks out Super One for an hour

One Productions was yesterday evening hit by a lightning strike as employees followed directives by the General Workers' Union.

The strike started at 8 p.m. and went on till 9, hitting both TV and radio and interrupting the schedule of programmes. Further such action is threatened.

Earlier yesterday, the union announced that workers would be following a series of industrial actions in protest against the behaviour of the board of directors who, it said, continued to reject repeated requests not to implement disciplinary measures that breached the collective agreement.

Contacted by The Times, GWU services and media section secretary Karmenu Vella said more than one lightening strike could take place during a day.

In a statement yesterday, Mr Vella said the union was complaining against disciplinary procedures applied by the disciplinary board and confirmed by the board of directors against an employee. He said these were a breach of the collective agreement and the employment and industrial relations law.

Mr Vella pointed out that One Productions had called for a meeting of the board of discipline and terminated a person's employment before answering to a prohibitory injunction called for by the union.

He explained that the union had no alternative but take action to protect both the sacked employee and the other One Productions workers.

At a meeting yesterday morning, One Productions employees unanimously agreed to follow the industrial action, Mr Vella said.

One Productions last night denied that its disciplinary action had breached the collective agreement.

It said it had received information about irregularities in the collection of money from clients by a female employee and had issued a charge, carried out an investigation and appointed a board of discipline, all in conformity with the agreement.

It said the employee failed to appear before the board and instead tried to hold up procedures with legal action.

The board heard the case and, based on the evidence, decided the employee had broken company procedures.

This was the third case involving the employee and she had been warned after the second one. The board had no other option but to dismiss her in the interest of the company and the other employees, the company said.

It said it had conformed fully with procedures laid down in an agreement with the union section, "which failed to cooperate in the disciplinary case".

It said it would do its utmost to continue giving a service to its audience.