The issue of family-friendly measures has once more become topical following the announcement that the European Parliament will vote on a motion on the extension of maternity leave.

The Malta Employers Association, representing mainly firms in the private sector, was prompt in its reaction by pinpointing the adverse effects such a measure might have on the competitiveness of the firms operating in the Maltese labour market. It even urged the Maltese members of the European Parliament to vote against the motion. Although I tend to disagree with the stance taken by MEA, I have to admit that the rationale of its opposition to this extension of maternity leave is based on some cogent reasons.

I am making this point because, recently, the Parliamentary Ombudsman issued a report about a policy of non-implementation of family-friendly measures adopted by a public entity, which, in his opinion, is not backed by cogent reasons. The report was provoked by a complaint made by a female employee of the Central Bank of Malta who was not granted the same family-friendly measures enjoyed by civil service employees. The Central Bank decided not to follow the line set by the government about the implementation of family-friendly measures that go beyond those provided by statutory legislation.

This report by the Ombudsman on the Principles That Should Govern Relations Between The National Government And Public Authorities And Entities delineates the demarcation lines between government departments and the public entities that had been set up by the national government, most of which through ad hoc legislation or by the Constitution. One of these entities is the Central Bank, which in its application of the family-friendly measures, failed to comply with the guidelines set by the government, claiming that as an independent and autonomous institution it is not part of the public service and is, therefore, not obliged to follow the standards and work practices set by the national government.

The Ombudsman, following thorough investigation and consultation with the European Central Bank, was unequivocal in his disagreement with this logic and the stand adopted by the CBM. While acknowledging the autonomy and independence of the CBM, the Ombudsman states that such autonomy and independence is not, however, unlimited. It is circumscribed by the parameters set out in article 108 of the EC Treaty that lays down this principle of independence of National Central Banks (NCBs) only "when exercising the powers and carrying out the task and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and statute of the ECB" (page 7 of the report).

What this implies and is made clear in the report is that that the national authorities or entities that by law enjoy a measure of autonomy should not consider themselves as being completely cut off from the mainstream of the management of public affairs as regulated by the public service (page 6 of the report).

These national autonomous institutions are extensions of national government and, as such, they cannot ignore the principles set by government. Indeed, they are expected to follow the guidelines set by the government in acting as the ideal employer in the implementation of the family-friendly measures, which members of the civil service have been enjoying.

It stands to reason that public sector entities such as the CBM that participate in the governance of the country have the duty, also as good employers, to follow that lead when this in no way impinges on the exercise of functions proper to them (page 13).

This report provides clear parameters of what constitutes the public sector. In spite of the autonomy and independence conferred upon them by law, the entities set up by national government are expected to act within the guidelines set by the government with regard to the conditions of work of their employees. In other words, working conditions in these entities should not be inferior to those of the civil service.

According to the opinion of the Ombudsman, in depriving its employees of the benefits of family-friendly measures enjoyed by other public sector employees, the CBM breached the rules of good governance. Compliance to the implementation of objectively salutary measures does not impinge on the exercise of powers conferred by law upon such an entity.

A number of questions have been raised by this report about the outcome on industrial relations in the public sector. Will those public entities that did not toe the line re-adjust their policy in accordance with the ethics governing good governance as outlined by the Ombudsman? Will the trade unions take up the cudgel on behalf of those who have been or are being denied these benefits capriciously?