The guillotine brief

The general secretary of the General Workers' Union, Tony Zarb is in the firing line as the union threatens industrial action in sympathy with workers facing redundancy at government entities. He tells Rosanne Zammit the first priority is for workers to get the best deal in the circumstances, adding that the future of the workers employed by the GWU-owned Cargo Handling Company could not be guaranteed because of the government's fault.

Last week, you gave the Prime Minister until last Monday to reply to the GWU's call for discussions on a number of issues including the future of Interprint workers or otherwise the union would go ahead with its actions. What is the union's next step?

The Prime Minister has replied but no progress has been registered. The union is stressing the need for a meeting to be held. The time has come for further communication by correspondence to stop because very little progress is being made that way.

But hasn't the Prime Minister said he will only meet the union if it lifts the threat of industrial action?

While the Prime Minister is expecting the union to remove its notice of industrial action unconditionally, he was himself laying down a condition in saying he only wanted to discuss how the 12 Interprint workers (that are being made redundant) could find work in the private sector.

In its letters to the Prime Minister, the union said it wanted to discuss three points, namely alternative employment for Interprint workers who wanted it; a government assurance that discussions with the union would be held over developments that could affect workers and the creation of opportunities in the private sector so that it would be easy for workers affected by dismissals to find alternative employment.

So can't you start by discussing one issue at a time?

We should meet and discuss all issues... The Prime Minister is trying to steer away from what he told us in a meeting towards the end of June that the government would no longer be offering alternative employment for employees of its companies undergoing restructuring. He also said that when no agreement is reached the guillotine would down on the workers.

It was not the union but the government that used the word guillotine.

And had this meeting discussed Interprint employees?

Yes, but the Prime Minister came up with this statement and as a union we expect the government's assurance that the workers do not end up as victims. But the Prime Minister does not want to discuss this!

Can this whole Interprint issue be the result of shoddy negotiations by the union? Was it turned into a national issue to hide someone's failure?

No. The government did not consult us in the manner it should have. Even though the government was duty bound to negotiate with unions before issuing the dismissal notices, these were issued without any discussions being held. So it is not a case of someone not doing one's duty. Even the Director of Labour had pointed out that the issue was not handled properly. The union had not been informed about the redundancies so it could not negotiate them.

There had not been any redundancies at the Malta Development Corporation, Malta Export Trade Corporation and the Institute for the Promotion of Small Enterprise. All workers in these companies found alternative employment...

This is what the union expected in this case as well. But the government is acting differently with these people. It is true that Interprint is closing down but then Medigrain had also closed down and the government had provided alternative employment. Why are Interprint workers being treated differently?

But don't you believe that a solution will in the end be found?

Let's hope it will. This is why we want to discuss. We cannot imagine how the government is unable to take on 12 workers.

Will the union continue insisting on its position? Is it willing to withdraw its notice of industrial action so that the meeting with the Prime Minister can be held?

We are saying that for us to meet we are willing to consider suspending industrial action, as long as the government agrees to discuss the three points. The union also wants to retain the right not to have to re-issue notice of industrial action when there is a drawn-out dispute.

There had been redundancies at Interprint once before. Why had the union not said anything then?

The union had then requested alternative employment but all the workers dismissed preferred to go for the redundancy money.

You are accused by certain quarters of making a fuss about this issue and others because of the GWU conference in October when your post will be up for election. Is there any truth in such charges?

Not at all. Using such reasoning, I can go on leave until October. Other cases may also come up before October. Am I expected to keep my mouth shut till then?

So are you saying the election of the union's general secretary has nothing to do with what you are doing?

Not at all. I am only doing my duty. By the same token the government should not do anything in its last year of its legislature because of the election.

Let's turn to Sea Malta. In your meeting with workers a few weeks ago, did you tell them about the conditions being offered by the government - including that of a guaranteed job for three years?

Yes. I met with the workers' committee and told them what the government was offering the day after I received the relevant letter. In the case of Sea Malta, the government is not guaranteeing the jobs of shore workers automatically. These are only guaranteed if an agreement is reached on the seafaring employees.

Was this the reason why during your address to executive committees you mentioned the workers of Sea Malta along with those of Interprint and Maltacom as employee who may be facing the guillotine?

Of course, for what would happen if we do not agree on the seafaring workers? We are, however, working to reach an agreement and meetings are being held.

What are the prospects of an agreement?

Two meetings have been held and both were aimed at gathering as much information as possible. More information will be compiled at our next meeting. One issue was that they wanted to employ the seafarers according to International Transport Federation (ITF) standards which are much lower than what the workers currently enjoy.

And are you confident an agreement will eventually be reached?

This is why the union is taking part in the discussions. We want to reach an agreement and conclude the matter.

Do you know of any government entity where negotiations are taking place and where the government is not negotiating alternative employment?

Not at the moment.

So why has the union expressed concern...

The union is afraid that there are government entities that are to be restructured and we do not know what will happen. What if the guillotine is used? This is the union's fear.

But the government has so far not implemented such a policy. What is worrying the union?

It is because the Prime Minister has not told us he would not go ahead with such a policy. We are not asking the Prime Minister to declare he would not use the guillotine but to provide an assurance that whenever there are developments that would affect workers, it should first seek a solution with the union to prevent the workers ending up as victims.

You were chairman of Ritescan in 2003 when the union owned the company and closed it down. Did you offer workers alternative employment with the same conditions they had at Ritescan?

Yes, but most opted for the redundancy money.

Were identical conditions offered?

Practically, yes.

During the meeting of the executive committees, union president Salvu Sammut said the union had either to fight the government or it might as well close its doors. He said those who were not prepared to fight could leave the union immediately. Do you agree with this statement?

I am saying that if we have an issue with the government, no one in the union should be afraid of taking the necessary stand.

Was Mr Sammut referring to anyone in particular?

I don't know, ask him. It is everyone's duty in the union to take a stand to defend workers.

But you don't know whether he was referring to anyone in particular. Did you not ask him?

No.

By asking for alternative employment for people in government entities facing problems are you not discriminating between workers in the private and public sector?

I anticipated this question and my answer is no. There were many cases where the GWU assisted private sector employees to find alternative employment after they were dismissed. We are saying that when the government decides to close down a company, it should have an obligation towards the workers.

This has nothing to do with discrimination. The government is, after all, supposed to be a model employer. We are also saying that one of the points we want to discuss with the Prime Minister is how to create more employment in the private sector.

Will the union be offering alternative employment to all workers at Cargo Handling if it does not win the tender for port services?

It is not the union that will close Cargo Handling but the government. The only thing the union can guarantee is that if it wins the bid it will employ all the workers.

And if it doesn't?

If it doesn't, it will not have closed the company itself. The government has already declared it will not be obliging the winner of the tender to take on the workers.

So if the union does not get the contract, there are no guarantees for these workers...

Of course not. If there is a category of workers whose future is bleak it is those at Cargo Handling and this is because of the government's attitude. The union had asked the government to bind the new company to take on the workers.