Exclusion and exclusiveness

The Parliamentary Secretary for Consumer Affairs, Fair Competition, Local Government and Public Dialogue, Chris Said, declared that the government is in favour of Forum Unions Maltin being represented on the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development. However, For.UM's representation is subject to consensus among the present members of the MCESD. According to the government, the MCESD was founded through consensual arrangement between the government and the social partners and, hence, its stand.

For.UM does not agree with this position because it is based upon a false premise.

On various occasions, For.UM officials have called upon Dr Said to produce any evidence to assert his claim that when the MCESD was founded nine years ago, there was any form of consensual arrangement back then among the entities or their representatives. Moreover, For.UM has also challenged Dr Said to explain which legislative provision prohibits the government from taking the necessary measures to ensure true socio-economic representation on the MCESD and that such measures are conditioned to the government seeking prior approval of the existing members. Since when has the government's sovereign legislative prerogative been subject to consensual arrangements?

The MCESD was founded by an Act of Parliament in 2001, subsequently amended by a legal notice, 436 of 2007. Its primary function is to serve as an advisory body to the government by providing a forum for consultation and social dialogue among social partners: the government, employers and trade unions.

Initially, the MCESD was called the Malta Council for Economic Development and, later on, the social dimension was incorporated. Its composition is determined by law, whereby the three main social partners have an equal number of seats. Thus, four seats are established for the government and four seats each for employer and trade-union organisations. Initially, the four union seats were shared among the General Workers' Union and the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions, each having two seats. However, the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin did not accept this arrangement in spite of the fact that it is part and parcel of the CMTU, its membership totalling circa 80 per cent of the total CMTU membership. The government of the day, headed by Eddie Fenech Adami, solved this quandary by dividing the seats allotted to the CMTU and assigning a seat to the UĦM. The UĦM is a large general union and, hence, its representation on the MCESD is not at issue.

Apart from the UĦM, the CMTU is composed of the Malta Union of Bank Employees, the Medical Association of Malta and a few other unions which together total 3,000 members. On the other hand, there is For.UM, a confederation of 11 trade unions totalling about 12,000 members who are completely left out of the fray. The constituent unions of For.UM represent strategic sectors of the local socio-economic field: health, education, tourism, banking and a whole myriad of other professions within these sectors. For.UM remains nonetheless excluded from the MCESD, pending the success or otherwise of the government's consensus-seeking bids!

Initially, the organisations representing employers on the MCESD were the Malta Employers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association and the Federation of Industry. When the Federation of Industry and the Chamber of Commerce were amalgamated into one entity, the succeeding organisation retained the original two seats. No questions were asked at the time nor any mandatory reference to consensus or legislative provisions was exacted.

At the time of the inception of the MCESD, the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises - GRTU was considered as having a dual role, that of an employers' organisation and a trade union at the same time. Hence, its seat was aligned with neither the employers nor trade unions. However, since Malta's accession to the European Union, the GRTU assumed the function of an employers' organisation and is, in fact, officially registered as such on the EU's Social and Economic Council.

Today, the situation on the MCESD is therefore one in which there is an imbalance of seats against unions: four seats reserved for the government, five seats occupied by employers' organisations and four seats occupied by trade unions. For.UM calls upon the government to establish five seats for all three social partners, hence, the one seat gained by the unions may be assigned to For.UM.

Within this context, it is incumbent upon the government to address the present anomalous situation. However, the government chose to adopt a laissez-faire approach to the whole situation, first by proclaiming that For.UM's bid for membership of the MCESD required "unanimous approval" and thereafter by declaring that "consensus" of existing members is imperative, ignoring completely the stand of the MEA and other organisations that called on the government to take a decision rather than passing the buck back onto the social partners.

The government's non-committal stance is no surprise given that the Nationalist Party seems to have quite an indifferent, if not negative, attitude to the whole issue. In fact, Paul Borg Olivier, the PN's general secretary, answered that the problem should be addressed by the GWU forfeiting one of its two seats in favour of For.UM. Coincidentally or not, the same sentiment was expressed by none other than Vince Farrugia, the GRTU's director general and PN candidate for the European Parliament. In his role as GRTU official, Mr Farrugia predictably pronounced a "no way" dictum for For.UM membership on the same basis.

It is evident that For.UM's legitimate request for membership of the MCESD is meeting resistance from determinate quarters. All forms of obstacles by way of excuses are being put up. Is For.UM perceived as posing some sort of threat? If this is so, to whom and in respect of what? If not, why is the government permitting procrastination on For.UM's request?

In such circumstances, the government has an impending obligation to ensure adequate representation of social forces on the very entity whose raison d'être is social dialogue. Abdication of this responsibility raises serious questions about the alignment of social forces as well as the impartiality and autonomy of the government in executing its legitimate functions. In essence, the democratic credentials of governance are called into question.

The author is president of Forum Unions Maltin.