Times of Malta readers have been regaled with yet again another article on recent changes to the composition of chairpersons of the Industrial Tribunal, this time from the president of the Malta Employers Association (MEA).

Entitled ‘Best choices for the Industrial Tribunal?’ (Times of Malta Business, August 15) the article is to a large extent a repeat performance to previous contributions that have graced this newspaper in the last weeks.

It is not the intention of this ministry to repeat the explanations that it has already given to the issues raised by the MEA. However, inaccuracies need to be corrected and put straight lest readers are led to believe that misrepresentations, repeated over and over again, gradually become palatable.

As the MEA president himself acknowledges, the Employment and Industrial Relations Act allows the Prime Minister to vary the composition of the panel of chairpersons of the Industrial Tribunal. Sub article 73(6) of the Act states clearly that: “The Prime Minister may, from time to time, as he shall see fit and after consultation vary the composition of the panel”. Acting on the strength of this provision, the Government felt that the time had come to do so.

This sub article goes on to state that: “A person actually serving as Chairperson of the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding the removal of his name from the panel, continue so to serve in the proceedings in which he is serving as chairperson until the conclusion of those proceedings and for the purpose of the interpretation of any award given therein.”

The president of the Association is therefore wide of the mark and oblivious of the full implications of this sub-article when he writes that: “Those chairpersons who understood they had, or felt pressured, to voluntarily resign from their post were, at that precise moment, giving up their right and duty to hold on to their case files and conclude their pending cases. A chairperson who resigns effectively gives up the appointment and ceases to function. What was a right to conclude becomes instead a concession from the minister.”

Nothing could be further from the truth; and coming from the president of the MEA, this statement is even more unacceptable. Since March 2013 no pressure whatsoever has been exerted on any tribunal chairperson and this ministry takes a serious view of this assertion which is meant to harm the Government’s credentials in the field of industrial relations.

It is, moreover, a blatant attempt to confuse the minds of readers who may not be aware of the provisions of the law and which on this score are clear, unmistakeable and unambiguous. They are in fact meant to ensure that, regardless of the closure of the tenure of any chairperson for whatever reason, proceedings in ongoing cases have to be brought to their conclusion by the chairpersons originally entrusted with the files in question unless there is a legitimate reason for them not to do so.

Failure to abide by this provision of the law can only be regarded as an attempt to derail the work of the tribunal and to hold parties in cases before the tribunal as hostage to this unprincipled line of action.

As it does with all social partners, this ministry wants to keep a sound working relationship with the MEA. It will not, however, keep silent on attempts by the Association to discredit actions by the ministry that are fully in line with the letter and spirit of the law and in the interest of the best functioning of the industrial tribunal system.

Following attempts to undermine the new chairpersons of the tribunal while at the same time on the face of it extolling their integrity, competence and positive intentions, the MEA president concludes his contribution to Times of Malta by a thinly-veiled barb. In a despondent après moi le deluge mode, he asks: “In terms of a desired balanced extraction of the chairpersons, does the panel, now appointed, constitute an optimal choice?” Not surprisingly, the reply recalls the assessment made previously by Andrew Borg Cardona. “It looks very much like a biased choice”, the MEA president laments quite predictably.

The MEA is fully at liberty to believe that the Government has not made the right choice. On the other hand this ministry is equally free not to subscribe to this view and to reject it out rightly.

Regardless of the background of the selected persons and their past connections, this ministry reiterates that it made a right and balanced choice. Its selection process was guided first by the need to ensure that the chosen individuals have multi-disciplinary backgrounds; are competent; and are known to be persons who possess integrity and are of sound judgement and independent.

This ministry strongly refutes the Association’s attempts even at this stage to undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of the new panel of chairpersons. Innuendos that seek merely to put the new panel under a cloud – such as the remark that the choice made by the Government “might not augur well for the efficient functioning of the Industrial Tribunal” – are unbecoming and simply meant to harm the tribunal’s operations.

As was made amply clear in a previous contribution to the Times of Malta only a few days ago, the main challenge facing the Industrial Tribunal is to reduce waiting times for cases to be concluded; to ensure that casework is dealt with effectively and fairly; and to see that the tribunal operates efficiently so that the backlog of disputes in the industrial field will be cut down as soon as possible.

The ministry will strive hard to attain these objectives. It also expects the MEA to contribute towards the achievement of these ends although at this point it might be appropriate to put on record that in its contribution to the Times of Malta the MEA notably fails to make even one single reference to any commitment on its part to do so.

It is the view of this ministry that, rather than engage in futile controversies, there should be a serious and shared commitment to further improve the Maltese industrial relations system.

Jonathan Brimmer is communications coordinator at the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties.