Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/373141
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 31 AUGUST 2014 13 Another, perhaps more significant objection by the MEA concerns the supreme power of parliament over the tribunal. "The current law states that parliament can nullify a decision by an industrial tribunal. We're saying: this provision has to go, because it doesn't make sense." It doesn't sound very legal to me, either. Parliament is occupied by gov- ernment, which is the country's larg- est employer. The conflict of interest is glaring. Surely, however, that can be contested on Constitutional grounds? No one can be a judge in his own court, and all that… "Let's just say it never happened. But the mere fact that it is there is not cor- rect. It has to go…" With it, he adds, must go the le- gal mechanism for the appointment of chairpersons. "As things stand, a minister can actually remove a chair- person at his own discretion. Except in cases which are ongoing: those are protected. But the law allows a minister to 'change the composition of the chairpersons' (there are 12 in all), so he can appoint you one week, and remove you the next. This right to mess about with the panel should go. What we want is that chairpersons are appointed for a fixed period of time: say, three or five years. But dur- ing that period, no minister or prime minister can remove a chairperson… unless of course, there is manifest in- competence, improper behaviour, or whatever." Was there particular reaction to this? Any indication that the govern- ment may consider the proposal? "No. We only got reactions on sick leave…" There was however some reaction to the MEA's proposal to cap com- pensation paid out by employers in the case of unfair dismissal. The sug- gested cap of 18 months' salary seems to be slightly on the low side… "We suggested 18 months' salary as a maximum ceiling, yes, but we could have said five years, three years… the important thing is that it is capped, not left at the full discretion of the tri- bunal; and that an explanation is given for how the compensation figure was reached. And this is nothing new, it already exists in the UK…" For all this, union representation re- mains the biggest bone of contention. "It is not fair that employers should suffer when unions fight among themselves for recognition. We be- came aware that the government is elaborating a proposal regarding un- ion representation. We have our own clear views on this. We declared up front that union recognition issues are currently not tackled at all, either by regulations or by any competent authorities. We propose a minimum intervention in the law: union recog- nition should be based – it's common sense – on real union membership." At present, a union can claim to rep- resent 50% plus one of the workforce, and demand recognition which gives that union the right to negotiate a col- lective agreement. "How do you decide which union to recognise where there are two con- tending unions, and both claim to have 50% plus one?" Some unions favour a system of 'bal- lots', whereby employees are simply asked which union they prefer to rep- resent them. MEA contends that the system is prone to abuse. "We don't believe in ballots. We believe in real union membership. We want the law to include a definition of what a union member is. We think it should be an up-to-date, paid-up member. So if a union makes a claim, the director of labour asks – in confidence, because it's confidential information – for the receipts of the members. We can even give a grace period, because people don't pay on time. Let's say a one-year grace period…." But surely unions would object be- cause it might expose their members to risk? Union membership is after all a politically sensitive issue in some workplaces… "The MEA believes that union mem- bership is and should be remain confi- dential. There are some unions which are in favour of this approach, too. If there are clear rules, nobody is going to bluff. We propose to give the direc- tor of labour the power to demand the information, and an obligation on unions and employers to give the information. If there is a recognition dispute, the director of labour will then have an obligation to intervene. Not at his own discretion, as it stands today." Interview The MEA stirred a hornet's nest with proposals to limit sick leave benefits payment. Its president, ARTHUR MUSCAT, argues that there's much more to the picture than that about sick leave PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD