Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1037099
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 OCTOBER 2018 INTERVIEW At a glance, there seem to be many contradictions surrounding this week's events. On Tuesday, the MUT announced that it had not been consulted about the new Education Act; government responded by claiming that consultation had taken place in 2016, and that the MUT had participated, but raised none of the objections it raised this week. Can you give us the MUT's version of events leading to this week's (aborted) strike action? The situation is this. In 2016, a bill was put forward for public consultation. Like all other stakeholders and the general public, the MUT gave its feedback to the version of the bill that was on the table at that time. This was under the MUT's previous adminis- tration; but if you look at the union's feedback in 2016, and compare it to our position to- day, you will see that we have been very consistent. For ex- ample: at the time, we were very vociferous about home schooling; today – though two years have since elapsed – our position has not changed even remotely. Same with the issue of CPD [continuous profes- sional development]. It was in- cluded in the original 2016 bill; and back then the union had objected to CPD being included in the law, because we argued that this was an issue of sectoral agreement, not national legisla- tion. Today, we have reasserted that same position. The under- lying issue, however, is that de- spite the consultation exercise of 2016, we never saw the final document until this week. And when we saw it, we realised that it contained issues that had never been discussed with the MUT during those meetings. It could be that other stakehold- ers discussed them – the con- sultation was not just between government and the MUT – or it could be that government included them on its own ini- tiative. But the bill was by that time already at second reading stage. So our major objection was that we only got to find out about these issues – and even then, only by coincidence – last weekend… though the bill had been tabled in parliament on 4 July; and had since reached an advanced stage of discussion. How is it possible that a docu- ment as important as this could be debated in parliament, with- out even being seen by a union representing the profession that this law would be regulat- ing? And at the end of the day, the Education Act regulates the entire profession: including, naturally, the educators who will be putting it into effect. Yet we only found out about it last Sunday. On Monday, we went through the document together with our legal consultants; and on Tuesday we held a press conference where we listed out seven main issues we objected to. They were all matters of principle. We didn't object to a missing comma, or to an indi- vidual word here and there that could be amended or improved. Those are small things that can easily be resolved. But matters of principle are different… One of the main objections concerns changes to the warrant system. The MUT accused the government of trying to make permanent teachers' warrants 'temporary', while Education Minister Bartolo has consistently denied that the new law makes any such change. Can you explain how the new law would have impacted the warrants currently held by licensed teachers? The main difference since the original bill of 2016 is that the new law added three specific clauses: 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3. These specify that for a teacher to hold on to his or her war- rant – literally – they would have to undergo 'continuous professional development', in conjunction with a proficiency test. If the Council of Teachers is not satisfied that a teacher has undergone that process, it could lead to the suspension of that teacher's warrant. After that, there is an extraordinary clause that states the warrant could even be terminated… al- though this clause already ex- isted in the present law… To an outsider, that might not seem such an extreme injustice. Other professionals – for instance, doctors and lawyers – risk losing their warrants in certain circumstances. Why should it be any different for teachers? It isn't. There are already cir- cumstances whereby a teacher can lose his warrant: and it has happened in the past, although not very often. There are even current, pending cases before the Council as we speak. At present, there are two spe- cific circumstances that could lead to the loss of a warrant: one is a criminal conviction, which automatically triggers a mechanism leading to warrant withdrawal. This is standard for all Public Service employ- ees. The other circumstance is if a teacher is reported to the Council over a number of shortcomings: either concern- ing competence, or a violation of the Code of Ethics. But we're not arguing about these factors. Our objection is that a new tier has been added to those estab- lished parameters, making the warrant subject to CPD and a proficiency test. That is why we declared that, with these changes, a teacher's warrant would become 'temporary'… Meanwhile, the Prime Minister announced that he would withdraw the new bill, on condition that the strike planned for Monday was called off. He said this while a 'conciliation meeting' between the MUT and Minister Bartolo was still in progress… prompting the MUT to walk out of the meeting, and to announce that the strike would go ahead regardless. If the union's demands had already been met… why not call the strike off straight away, instead of waiting until today? It's not as simple as that: let me explain. We were invited to a conciliation meeting, which as a rule is governed by established mechanisms. There will be a mediator, representatives on both sides… usually, the chosen venue will be a neutral location, to ensure that all sides can speak freely… it wasn't on this occa- sion – we met at the ministry – but still, we're not complaining about that. Or even about the meeting itself, which proceeded according to the usual param- eters: a ministry representative (Minister Bartolo wasn't present himself) outlined government's proposals, including the with- drawal of the bill if we called off the strike. So far, so good. But while this was going on, we … that was the question facing the Malta Union of Teachers this week, as Parliament debated a new Education Act with far-reaching implications for the teaching profession as a whole. MUT President MARCO BONNICI outlines the union's objections to the new law, and why the MUT first called – then later cancelled – a strike How is it possible that a document as important as this could be debated in parliament, without even being seen by a union representing the profession that this law would be regulating? Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt To strike or not to strike…