There seems to be a perception that members of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) are convinced that harassment, victimisation, discrimination and unequal treatment are rampant in places of work. I lately heard a remark to the effect that commission officials are perturbed that very few persons are reporting such incidents.

There is a belief that abuses at places of work invariably do not get reported by the victims because of a fear of repercussions, coming from the employer, or the aggressor, that might follow the lodging of a complaint. I have no reason, in the absence of proof, to believe that in actual fact this is the work environment that prevails in Malta.

I have no doubt that some of the aforementioned misdemeanours do occur in places of work, however, there is no evidence that abuse is widespread with a situation out of control.

Due, to a large extent, to the education efforts, and awareness campaigns, of the same NCPE, people are much more conscious of their right to a work environment free of abuse, where the dignity and rights of employees are respected.

This is why I am convinced that the situation is not alarming, as some want to convince us.

After a reasonable period of time, the success of campaigns becomes evident. Sometimes when a stage of relative attainment of objectives is achieved the organisers might get tempted to downplay their success and cry out for more and more rigid controls and interventions.

Of course no way is it being suggested that there are no more problems and we can now afford to lie back and lower our guard. The promotion of the rights and welfare of once extremely disadvantaged minority groups must not stop, and in this sense the NCPE has an almost perpetual promotion and monitoring role to fulfil.

Further education and awareness campaigns are required, tasks which are very much up the street of NCPE.

What however absolutely is not needed is a replacement of an already adequate and effective legal framework to govern equality and non-discrimination at places of work.

The Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Part IV) “Protection against Discrimination related to Employment”, Chap. 456, Equality for Men and Women Act, together with an effective Industrial Tribunal constitute an efficient and functioning set-up.

Then there are also the director of Employment and Industrial Relations plus the chairperson of NCPE who have a monitoring role to guarantee fundamental human rights, equality, non-discrimination and non-harassment in places of work. It is important to note that this framework is up to EU standards and is in full conformity with relative directives.

So why is the government proposing to introduce a new Equality Act 2015 and a Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2015, which Acts are to be made to apply to an already well-served world of work? Hardly any convincing reasons are being mentioned, to justify this government’s push for this new legislation.

Employers will have to be careful about these additional novel and confusing characteristics to avoid being accused of infringing them, with an accusation that will mean an ‘a priori’ guilt assumption

The MEA is not convinced about, and is totally against, the transformation and elevation, through these Acts, of the NCPE, from a commission that promotes and monitors to a commission more akin to a police unit and a court of law, rolled into one, with authority to investigate, accuse, prosecute, judge and dispense punishments to employers.

The MEA is against the introduction of further new dubious and confusing protected characteristics, (genetic features, health status, language, civil status, nationality, gender expression, etc.). Employers will have to be careful about these additional novel and confusing characteristics to avoid being accused of infringing them, with an accusation that will mean an “a priori” guilt assumption.

What is being proposed, the final version of which still has to reach MEA (the Human Rights and Equality Commission Act), reveals a badly suppressed arrogance towards employers. This thinly veiled anti-employer attitude goes back a long time and can be evidenced even in current legislation.

A look at the aforementioned Chapter 456, specifically clause 5 (1), will reveal that an employer can be made, by an employee or a commissioner, to produce and hand over a report on an alleged infringement/accusation, which report may eventually be used as evidence against him/her. Don’t we all know that there is a legal principle whereby a citizen may not be induced to incriminate himself?

Another example, clause 11 (1) specifies that out of a complement of seven commission members, to be appointed by the minister, at least three have to be female. Now this is where the clause stops, so that without a corresponding three male presence guarantee, without any infringement of the law, the commission may be made up of seven females!

We can do with less, not more, of this kind of partial, unjust and shoddy legislation.

An opinion is forming that the ministry’s proposed Acts, as they include an elementary process of accusation, will encourage frivolous and vexatious reporting by employees of perceived alleged employer infringements.

In itself such an objective is ethically questionable and unacceptable. Employers are very disappointed and believe that political behaviour must not include a process whereby citizens are split into lobby groups and then selectively tackled for support through the granting of unreasonable demands.

The shame is that concurrently the proposals seem very short on safeguards and remedies in instances of dubious, unproven or outright false accusations. Serious worry sets in when the due process of law is proposed to be administered by an inherently partial, and potentially legally illiterate, commission and commissioner, and not by a constituted court of law.

This type of reputed cutting- edge equality legislation we can do without.

Arthur Muscat is vice president of the Malta Employers’ Association.