Seventy-one years ago, the founding father of the General Workers’ Union, Reggie Miller, ran into a spot of trouble with the then trade union registrar when he found it difficult to compile a proper list of union members as required by law.
Besides the names, trade unions also had to give the age, address and trade of each member, details which Mr Miller felt were unnecessary and which constituted a shackle to the union at such an early stage of its formation.
With today’s modern means, it is not difficult to comply with such requirements. However, the Malta Employers’ Association has gone beyond this in its effort to avoid clashes over recognition.
It is suggesting giving a legal definition to the term ‘union member’. In its view, a trade union member is someone who has an up-to-date payment of his/her union fees. The proposal makes good sense because, if adopted, it would provide a reliable manner in which to establish recognition, although balloting has its positive points as well. Balloting is usually resorted to when a union has less than 50 per cent proven membership in a unit seeking recognition.
The MEA suggestion is one of a number made in a memorandum setting out proposals for the amendment of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act of 2002.
Unfortunately, discussion of the association’s document was derailed, as it were, because what made headlines was a controversial proposal over self-inflicted sickness.
Two other aspects of the document that deserved much greater attention are proposed improvements to provisions dealing with the industrial tribunal and union recognition.
As regards the composition of the tribunal, the association is proposing, for example, that, whether convened to hear alleged unfair dismissal or discrimination cases, or industrial disputes, the tribunal will be composed of a chairman, who is a qualified lawyer with seven years’ experience, and two lay members. Each party to a suit will be entitled to choose a member from a panel of members as currently composed.
Association president Arthur Muscat has explained that “such a set-up will promote a strict and correct observance of legal procedures but it also favours deliberations and decisions that have an input from two lay members with valid practical experience of the industrial and employment environment”.
Quite rightly and logically, too, the association insists on security of tenure for tribunal chairmen and feels that a legal provision now in place empowering Parliament to nullify a tribunal decision must go.
Besides proposing a legal definition of trade union member, the association is also submitting proposals for clearer obligations on unions and employer associations to keep up-to-date records on paid-up memberships and to give more power to the registrar of trade unions to inspect and verify records, besides placing more obligations on him.
Mr Muscat believes union recognition should be granted on the strength of proven union membership and not on the strength of ballots asking employees to say who they wish to represent them. Even if recognition issues were to be put aside for a moment, is it not important to know exactly the strength of each and every trade union in the country?
Other association proposals deal with the right to strike, protection of wages, over-utilisation of annual leave entitlement and the highly controversial one over sick leave. All these suggestions deserve objective consideration by all parties interested in maintaining harmonious industrial relations.