No date yet for MCESD meeting on holidays issue

It is not yet clear if the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development will meet in time to address the issue over the number of public holidays before an amendment to the law is presented in Parliament on January 10.

The government intends to amend the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act in order to implement the budget measure whereby holidays falling on the weekend would not be added to employees' annual leave. However it has left the door open to revising the measure if a workable agreement is reached at the MCESD.

Contacted yesterday, MCESD chairman Victor Scicluna said he was in constant touch with the social partners but no meeting has yet been fixed.

"We are exploring the possibilities but there are no meetings scheduled other than those on January 17 and 19, when we should be discussing the Chalmers report on the funding of higher education and oil prices," Mr Scicluna said.

Asked whether he thought a meeting would take place to discuss the issue, Mr Scicluna said there were divergent opinions about whether there should be such a meeting. He did not elaborate.

Contacted yesterday, both the employers' associations and trade unions said they were willing to meet but a degree of scepticism was evident on all sides.

The Malta Employers' Association's director general Joseph Farrugia said there was no definite notice about the meeting and he expressed doubts whether it would be called so soon.

"At this stage, if a meeting is called, we will not say we will not attend. The government and employers have made their intentions clear. If we can discuss the measure of reducing public holidays within the ambit of a wider pact, and there are signs that we can make it work, that would be a good sign. But there is no scope in meeting just to discuss the public holidays issue.

"The MCESD is a consultative forum. There is no need for consensus and it is not fair to expect consensus on certain issues. The government should weigh and do what is best, otherwise it might as well not govern at all.

"But it is a mistake to say that because we have not reached agreement the MCESD has failed. Discussion should lead to a decision. But the government has to have a deadline and decide.

"Considering the trade unions' attitude - that of huffing and puffing at every measure announced - we might as well not discuss anything. You see walls of defence going up all the time. The best possible solution was to remove three public holidays and get on with it but unions would object even to that," Mr Farrugia said.

The General Workers' Union's secretary general, Tony Zarb said the GWU was willing to meet and wanted the government to explain its decision.

"The government's announcement is not clear at all. Are we saying that next Christmas and New Year will not be a holiday? Is the government saying that shift workers and those who work on weekends will lose the premium? There are thousands of people who work on such days and this issue too affects collective agreements.

"The government has decided and has taken the side of the employers. It now wants unions and employers to meet and discuss the matter when the government knows we do not see eye to eye on the matter.

"But we want the meeting to take place and we will attend as we want to know what the government has in mind before the measure is announced in Parliament," Mr Zarb said.

The president of the Federation of Industry, Anton Borg said the FOI would attend an MCESD meeting on the issue if one were called.

"The FOI is not against meeting. We have met the GWU to discuss the issue but we never retreated from our position that the number of public holidays should be reduced.

"We tried to convince unions that it is better to agree on how to reduce the number of public holidays than say no to this and that as the end result could be worse," he said.

"And that is what has happened. The measure announced by the government is now worse. Because those working on such days will not be paid the premium they used to receive," Mr Borg said.

Asked whether he felt this was fair, Mr Borg said the unions knew this could happen but constrained the government to do it.

"The government cannot interfere where collective agreements are concerned but could have changed the Employment and Industrial Relations Act.

"The government can change any law and to maintain industrial peace the government declared it would now amend the National and Public Holidays Act. As it stands, failure to reach agreement is worse. But there are not many solutions unless the unions are prepared to budge.

"Reducing a number of days of vacation leave, even if for a period of, say, three years, could have been a solution but that entails changes to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act which the unions oppose," he said.

The Union Haddiema Maghqudin's secretary general, Gejtu Vella, said even at this eleventh hour it would be a wise move to convene an MCESD meeting. Rather than have an exchange of views in the press it would be healthier and in the interest of one and all to convene a meeting and find a solution.

"We strongly believe that the measure announced in the budget was a hotch-potch and the government was ill-advised. If we really want to do what is in the country's interest we should meet at the MCESD were solutions are found around the table.

"We have workers and their families' interests at heart and would never abdicate that responsibility," Mr Vella said.