The recent flurry of interventions in the Times of Malta by Andrew Borg Cardona to put the incoming Labour Administration in a bad light regarding the reconstitution of the Industrial Tribunal now seems to have lost steam.

It is therefore the right time to view this futile controversy in its proper perspective. This should enable a more objective evaluation of the way in which events unfolded, away from subtle innuendos and from deliberate political insinuations that invariably cloud his assessment of recent developments in this particular sphere of industrial relations.

It is a shame that Borg Cardona continues his crusade to castigate all things related to a Labour government by his vision of doom and gloom. This time it is the selection of a new team of chairpersons for the Industrial Tribunal that comes in his line of fire.

The Employment and Industrial Relations Act lays down procedures for the appointment of a panel of not more than 15 persons to act as chairpersons of the Industrial Tribunal; the professional background that is demanded of certain members of this tribunal; the duration of their appointment; and the distribution of duties.

The law also makes provision whereby the Prime Minister “... may, from time to time, as he shall see fit and after consultation... vary the composition of the panel (of chairpersons)...”

The recent exercise to change the composition of the Industrial Tribunal is therefore legitimate. It is a right that is allowed to the Government and that is fully sanctioned by law. All this is acknowledged by Borg Cardona, a lawyer.

Despite his awareness of this prerogative, however, Borg Cardona has no qualms to launch a sustained onslaught on the Government’s decision to announce changes to the composition of the Industrial Tribunal for 2013-2016 and proceeds to make repeated insinuations that these developments threaten the independence of the tribunal.

These fears are entirely misplaced. Respect for the autonomy and independence that lie at the very core of the Industrial Tribunal is not in any way influenced by whether chairpersons are changed or not.

The degree of independence of the Tribunal can be gauged by the strength of its freedom to work in full institutional and operational autonomy, free from any intervention by any government authorities and guided by the basic principles that underpin the rule of law. It is also measured by its ability to reach decisions without any fear or favour and without being subject at any time to external influence.

The ministry has no hesitation to subscribe fully to the view that the tribunal must be independent and free from any political interference. It unconditionally rejects and considers as totally unacceptable the claim that “... (the)... ministry does not appear to believe this to be the case...”

Allegations of political interference in this particular field of industrial relations, where manifestly there is none, can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to introduce disharmony in an area that has so far been kept away from political controversy.

The cynical portrayal of recent changes in the composition of the pool of chairpersons for the Industrial Tribunal as a direct menace to the institution’s integrity merely seeks to undermine its authority and proper functioning.

Characteristically, Borg Cardona wields both ends of the stick in his efforts to censure the Government’s reconstitution of the panel of chairpersons for the Industrial Tribunal. He first acknowledges that the Government acted according to law in setting up the tribunal for 2013-2016. In the same breath, he then goes on to chastise the Government for its action on certain aspects of the process to change the composition of the Tribunal where the law makes no provision at all.

It should be recalled here that the legislators did not declare their intentions and made no provision in the law about the way in which these issues are to be tackled. The ministry, therefore, has no legal, moral or other obligation to deal with them in the manner that Borg Cardona ordains and that would seem to best fit his interests.

Not content with having sown the seeds of doubt about the new team of chairpersons at the Industrial Tribunal, Borg Cardona also questions the position of chairpersons who retained their post.

He asserts that they may be considered as having been “favoured” by the Government and implies that their position is untenable while their presence on the tribunal could be perceived as a threat to its independence. This too is unacceptable.

Without casting any shadow on those who were replaced, the Government is convinced that chairpersons who retained their position on the Industrial Tribunal will continue to carry out their duties with the utmost integrity. They will do so uninfluenced by Borg Cardona’s fears of any possible collusion with government authorities as a means of recompense for retaining their services on the Tribunal.

The Government is equally confident that these chairpersons will continue to be guided by a deep sense of integrity throughout their deliberations and will reach their judgements in full homage to the principles of fair play and reasonableness that they undoubtedly also valued in previous years.

In an attempt to downplay the merits of the new chairpersons, Borg Cardona seeks to erode the foundations of their new appointments by digging up their past professional profiles – in one case even as far back as 2001. He lays open their public and private connections as well as their personal relationships and also portrays them as possessing a rabid anti-employer bias.

At the end, however, all this thunder fizzles out into a whimper as the credentials of these new appointees are upheld while their “obvious integrity” is openly recognised.

It needs no great intellect to realise the main purpose of this whole exercise to depict the new chairpersons as potentially spineless individuals only to backtrack and praise their standing and moral rectitude a few moments later. Clearly, this is meant to subtly undermine the credibility of those who are being singled out for criticism and sow doubts about their choice even at the same time as their virtues are seemingly extolled and acclaimed.

Borg Cardona’s various forays in the media have not served to increase or promote trust in the Industrial Tribunal. On the contrary, the recriminations by a person who is reputed to work extensively in this forum can only be taken to have been meant to gnaw at its integrity and its credibility. Surely this is not the way forward to uphold confidence in this institution.

Perhaps the most meaningful comment in this whole saga was that by the general secretary of the Union Ħaddiema Magħqudin. According to Times of Malta of July 16, Josef Vella was reported to have stated that “.... his greatest concern was not the composition of the tribunal itself but rather the delay in handing down judgement”.

He went on to point out that there are cases that have been pending before the Industrial Tribunal for more than two years. It is also understood that there are cases that have dragged on even longer.

Putting aside all useless controversies, this is the main challenge that faces the incoming Industrial Tribunal for 2013-2016. This is the situation that needs to be addressed urgently by the Tribunal.

On its part, the ministry will do its best to ensure that this state of affairs will come to an end, sooner rather than later.

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