The government was reacting to a statement issued by the union earlier this afternoon, which claimed that the shipyard would make losses of up to €46.59 million (Lm20 million) on a ship conversion contract. The union blamed the executive management and demanded a public inquiry by the government (see separate story below).
The Ministry for the Infrastructure, Transport and Communications described the union’s analysis of the contract as “superficial” and an attempt to shift the blame for the current situation at the dockyard.
“The truth is that the negative impact of the conversion contract mentioned by the GWU is to a great extent due to the serious lack of productivity of the workers engaged on this project. As in the case of other major contracts, this project depended on the ability of the workers and those who led them (also members of the GWU) to finish the work on time and with the least need for repeat work.
“The fact is, however, that productivity on this project was very low, indeed, this was the lowest rate of productivity when compared to productivity levels in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, the amount of work which had to be redone because it was not done properly the first time was very high as well.
“The client repeatedly protested to management over this seriously low productivity level and the lack of planning by whoever was supposed to deploy and manage the workers,” the ministry said.
Referring to the point made by the GWU on the marketing executive, the government said that the union had tried to give the impression that he had been negotiating the contract on his own. Yet anybody who had a basic knowledge of contracts of this scale knew that the whole management was involved. This marketing executive had left of his own free will, one reason being the frustration he suffered when he compared the situation in Malta to that in other shipyards, the ministry said.
The ministry said the contract had made allowance for variations, and the shipyard was to be paid for such changes. But the shipyard was not paid when work took longer than contracted or had to be redone because it was not done properly in the first place.
The ministry said the losses from the contract mentioned by the GWU were “a huge exaggeration”.
It said that contrary to what had been claimed, the union was always informed about the financial situation of the company through regular meetings.
It had also always been told that the poor level of productivity was a major problem and it had a major role to play in solving it. But the union had washed its hands of such responsibility, the government said.
It said the union statement was harmful to the reputation of the shipyard. It would have been more helpful had the union given its contribution for the workers to do their duty during the term of the conversion contract, the ministry said.