Malta Employers’ Association president Arthur Muscat believes that the unions are deliberately making a fuss about its proposals on sick leave and public holidays in order to distract from the real issues that are raised.

In an interview with Times of Malta, he stressed that the focus of the proposals was a “radical reform” of the Industrial Tribunal and union recognition.

Indeed, only three pages of the 39-page document are dedicated to sick leave. And there is very little that was not already brought up by the General Workers’ Union in 2007 when the exact same issues of sunburn, sports injuries and cosmetic surgery were brought up after employees were refused sick leave. What the MEA is after is not to insist on the employee turning up: if a person is unwell, they are unwell. What they want is the discretion to refuse to pay for that sick leave when it becomes blatant abuse.

There is also measured reasoning behind the proposal on public holidays as all it wants to do is remove the anomaly which currently means that those who have a midweek day off get a day’s leave in lieu of a public holiday falling on that day – while those who work Monday to Friday have for the past years forfeited that right when the public holiday falls on a weekend.

The issue with the Industrial Tribunal is definitely much thornier, even though it is not as obviously controversial to the public. The MEA is uncomfortable with things that have happened over the years. It sees a very important role for the tribunal in sorting out trade disputes and employment issues, one which could divert cases from ending up in court.

But this would not be possible unless changes are made to the appointment of the tribunal chairmen, their qualifications and the validity of their rulings. The tribunal cannot be a valid alternative to the court unless it enjoys the same independence, security of tenure of its members and executive powers of its rulings. The abrupt request for chairmen to resign after the election clearly disturbed the MEA, and rightly so. The rationale for changing government agency chairmen and ambassadors might – and the word “might” is important – be justified because these appointees need to reflect government policy. A tribunal that enforces legislation does not fall into this category.

The document’s preliminary statement said there should be a “clear and unequivocal legal framework” which should not be “subject to multiple interpretations”. It would be hard to fault that argument. Everyone likes to know where they stand.

And yet the MEA has been heavily criticised by the union and online comments from the public for its proposals. The perception is that the association fights for employers’ rights, and does not pay enough attention to the mutual respect that should form the basis of any employer/employee relationship. The fact that the entire two-page preliminary only uses the word “employee” once should make the association stop and ask itself whether that perception is justified.