Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1537913
5 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 JULY 2025 INTERVIEW The following are excerpts from the interview. The full interview can be found on maltatoday.com. mt as well as our Facebook and Spotify pages. PHOTOS: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTA TODAY Just under a year ago, I was speak- ing to you about the proposal for mandatory union membership, which was a government elec- toral pledge and which the UHM and the GWU agreed with albeit with differing ideas. All that we discussed is now futile because Parliamentary Secretary Andy Ellul announced that the idea has been scrapped following legal ad- vice. Was the government correct to scrap the idea? No. The government was not correct to make such a decision and I am very disappointed… the government took a unilateral decision without discussing it in any forum... It is clear that whenever the government faces pressure from employers, it simply gives in. When the UHM was arguing in favour of a paternalistic system to safeguard those on the lowest income rungs—we were not arguing for mandatory union membership for all workers—it was not an exercise to increase membership and raise more income as some tried to imply. Ours was a proposal to address those people crammed between the minimum wage and the average wage by giving them increased protection. These people are threatened not to join a union; some also have it spelt out in their work contracts that they cannot join a union… These are the weakest people [in the labour market] not just because of lower incomes but even in terms of bargaining power… So, the government never came forward to discuss a concrete pro- posal? No. But even on the decision to abandon the plan; how did the government come to its conclusion? Did it do so after consulting employers? Employers have long argued against [mandatory union membership]. Are we saying that if employers disagree, the government stops in its tracks; nothing happens? I do not expect this from a government that wins a significant electoral mandate but this majority, composed mainly of workers, is not translated into something tangible for their benefit… Andy Ellul said the government has legal advice against the pro- posal. Have you seen this legal advice? We have not seen the legal advice and neither was it communicated to us. We were not asked to provide a counter legal opinion. Isn't this what social dialogue is supposed to be about? Social dialogue is definitely not opening up the newspaper on Sunday and seeing the decision announced there, or being advised over the phone some two hours before the news is out. This is not social dialogue… trade unions enjoy less weight in this country's system of social dialogue. […] However, some will welcome the decision to abandon the plan be- cause it would have impinged on a person's human right to join the union of their choice, or not at all. We had said that workers falling within the scope of the proposal would have the right to choose which ever union they wanted to join. We did not argue that these workers should join the UHM; neither did the GWU say that workers should join its ranks. Workers would have the right to join any union they wanted. But in this country, if none of the existing unions are to your liking, all you need is seven members to create a union… However, this discussion did not take place in a meaningful way. These are the ideas your union had. These are ideas that over the years were discussed publicly and even explained in a forum organised by the President of the Republic. We always understood that the government's direction was that all this would eventually lead to something concrete. We never expected our proposal to be fully taken on board; that is social dialogue after all. But after all these years, to come forward and discard everything! You are disappointed. Without any doubt. The government has now an- nounced its intention to reform the Industrial Tribunal but no White Paper or blue print has been put forward. Do you agree it needs reform? Yes. This is something we have been calling for since 2015. We agree with reform but from our experience of social dialogue with this government, I fear it will lead to another disappointment. The government is hearing us but not listening to us… What type of reform would the UHM like to see? …UHM wants a tribunal at par with the magistrate's court… Presently, we cannot say that all persons presiding over the tribunal are of a good level. There are some who have taken their job seriously and delivered judgments that are good, but there are others who should no longer be there. […] We sometimes have a tribunal case presided over by a lawyer, which gives us some comfort because it is someone who knows the law. But how sustainable is this? The tribunal chair is a part-time job; they continue exercising their profession with the risk of having a conflict of interest. We need a dedicated system that trains people specifically for this tribunal, which should be elevated to magisterial level. […] The tribunals should be more professional with chairpersons who enjoy security of tenure and independence. This country has witnessed many reforms to ensure greater independence for members of the judiciary, including more transparent systems that have removed the interference of politicians from their choice. But in the Industrial Tribunal none of this has happened… Even employers would want a reform of the tribunal but from their end the argument would be the system favours workers, making it impossible to dismiss an employee. It's not true. If the employer follows procedure as required by law and they have good reason for sacking someone, it is not true the system stops them from doing so. We have had people who have been dismissed. But some employers get it wrong when they jump the gun—when an employer wakes up one morning and decides to terminate someone's job irrespective of what the internal disciplinary procedure says. It is obvious in circumstances like this that the employer will lose the case… Employers also raise concern over the type of compensation dished out by the tribunals, which in some cases resulted in compensation pay-outs running into hundreds of thousands. Employers want to cap compensation. It is wrong because it will breach the principles of justice. If the court finds in someone's favour and determines that compensation for the wrongdoing suffered should stand at €100,000 but the court has its hands tied because any compensation is capped at €50,000; is that justice? I cannot fathom that we are even discussing something like this. If the employer does not agree with the sentence, they can appeal... Where do you think the gov- ernment wants to go with this reform? I have no idea. I am still not seeing any appetite and enthusiasm from the government for the UHM's proposal to elevate the tribunal to the level of a magistrate. I expect the government to take us seriously… […] In a year's time, what will you be telling me? I hope that I will not be so frustrated. I hope to be talking about serious solutions and not cosmetic solutions. It is easy to tell people we've done justice and passed a law. But what matters is how that law has been implemented and not how it was passed.