It is common practice that the trade union that can prove it has the majority of membership among employees in an entity is granted the right to represent all the workers of such entity in collective bargaining.
An inter-union dispute occurs when there are two trade unions claiming to have a majority of members in the same entity.
The Employment and Industrial Relations Act (EIRA 2002), which governs and regulates employment relations, lacks a legal provision for trade union recognition at the place of work in these increasingly common episodes where two unions claim majority representation among a category of workers.
This lack of statutory procedure through which a union/s can claim recognition has been a source of trade disputes that have often been difficult to solve.
At present, there are two such disputes. One is between the General Workers’ Union and the Malta Union of Bank Employees over recognition of the clerical and managerial staff at Bank of Valletta.
This case has been referred to the Civil Court. The other one is between the GWU and the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin over recognition of employees at Arrow Pharm.
The law still lacks clear guidelines about trade union recognition at the place of work
The Malta Employers’ Association has expressed its concern about these disputes as it claims that bickering among trade unions is damaging industries in the sense that it is “leading to expensive settlements, which weaken competitiveness”.
Such disputes have been recurring for a long time and no concrete steps have been taken to find a sustainable solution.
Back in 1999, an inter-trade union dispute between the GWU and UĦM over trade union recognition at Malta International Airport developed into a drama involving many players.
The case was referred to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which, during session 278 in Geneva on June 17, 2000, stated that the case “would probably have been dealt more effectively had the national legislation been clear on recognition disputes, representation and legitimate restrictions on industrial action.”
This observation by the ILO has, so far, not been heeded because no amendments to the law have been made to provide clear guidelines about trade union recognition at the place of work.
To make up for this lack of legal provision, the director of the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER) conducts a highly laborious verification exercise that is not always well received by the trade unions engaged in the dispute.
The UĦM has refused to take part in the verification exercise among the employees of Arrow Pharm as it claimed that such a procedure is not appropriate at a time when it is negotiating severance pay for 100 workers who are being laid off.
A secret ballot under the supervision of the DIER director may be a better proposition.
The Centre for Labour Studies at the University of Malta, in its memorandum to the political parties contesting the general elections of March 2013, made the following recommendations: in situations where more than one trade union claims majority representation at a place of work, or amongst a specific group of workers there, the EIRA would empower the employer(s) involved to negotiate and develop a joint collective agreement with the two or more unions involved.
Also, should such a joint crafted collective agreement not be possible or desirable to the employer, formal mechanisms should be developed to grant exclusive recognition to one trade union and such a recognition would remain legal for a minimum period of time (say three years) in support of stability in industrial relations.
Of course, the ideal solution would be if the trade unions manage to establish a code of practice laying down ethical standards about recruitment of members.
Such an ethical behaviour binds trade unions in the UK that are members of the Trade Union Congress (TUC).
The ruling of a dispute committee operating within the parameters of this institution is binding on the parties involved.
Several attempts have been made to set up a TUC following the UK model in Malta, even under the auspices of the former secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation John Monks.
It looks as if the Maltese trade unions cannot find convergent ground in which to develop high trust relationships, which are so essential for the setting up of such an institution.
Given the lack of a legal provision about trade union recognition in the EIRA and the reluctance or inability of the trade unions to set up a mechanism for a consensual ethic, the best outcome to be hoped for is for the social partners to take the initiative and use the mechanisms of social dialogue at national level to make recommendations for concrete steps to be taken to address this issue.