Ban forced union membership

The General Workers’ Union has given unconditional support to the Labour Party ever since 1946, when a common front was established between the two organisations that eventually progressed to a statutory merger.

In return, consecutive Labour administrations have wielded considerable economic and political power upon the union’s leadership, ranging from glorified cabinet positions to multi-million-euro tenders.

Victor Carachi, who has occupied the position of full-time union president over the past 17 years, has raked in tens of thousands of euros yearly for rendering consultancy services to various government authorities where the GWU represents most employees, and this has evidently weakened the union’s bargaining strength with these authorities.

Union officials have extracted millions of euros from the controversial Community Workers’ Scheme while the government has paid hundreds of thousands of euros for the leasing of space to its agencies within the GWU’s headquarters in Valletta and property that it owns at A3 Towers in Paola.

Now the GWU is pressing the government to foist the practice of mandatory trade union membership that will enable it to continue swelling its coffers.

A sleek proposal to this effect was pitched by the union in its pre-2019 budget document. Its general secretary, Josef Bugeja has tried to play down the outright breach of the workers’ right to freedom of association that it will create by arguing that an opt-out mechanism was included that gives workers the option of not enrolling.

Yet, workers, including low-wage earners, who decide not to join a union would still have a fee deducted from their pay cheque. The money collected would then go to a common fund from which the GWU would receive the biggest share as the union with the largest membership.

Former prime minister Joseph Muscat had staunchly opposed the introduction of the closed shop policy but no sooner had the GWU made its proposal than he made a 180-degree U-turn and gave it his support in parliament though not necessarily embracing it.

The Labour Party eventually included the introduction of the closed shop in its 2022 electoral manifesto, ignoring a strong chorus of opposition from the three main employers’ associations and various other sectors of society.

The government kept flip-flopping by expressing uncertainty on whether it would impose the scheme on all workers or just on low-wage earners, third-country nationals or workers in particular industries.

The European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) has already ruled against a number of European countries for adopting the closed shop policy and discriminating against workers who refused to join or remain in a trade union.

In a landmark ruling that it delivered in the case of Young, James and Webster vs United Kingdom [1981], the ECtHR held that the publicly owned British Rails had breached the very essence of the right to freedom of association as provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when it dismissed all three individuals from work for refusing to join one of the trade unions to which it was associated because of the unions’ political affiliation and the perception that the unions had failed to serve their members’ interest.

In the case Sigurjónsson vs Iceland [1993], the ECtHR ruled that the country’s law regulating taxicab operating licences had infringed the ECHR by prohibiting taxicab operators from carrying out taxi services in a particular area if they were not members or had not applied for membership of a trade union of taxicab operators for that area.

No sooner had the GWU made its proposal than Joseph Muscat made a 180-degree U-turn- Denis Tanti

In the third case, Sørensen and Rasmussen vs Denmark [2006], the ECtHR ruled that the Danish government had failed to protect the applicants’ negative right to trade union freedom when they were dismissed from work for refusing to join a trade union which had basic political views that they could not support. This ruling overturned a prior ruling on the case given by the Danish high court.

Following this judgment, the Danish trade unions declared that they would no longer enforce the contested closed shop clauses while the government tabled a bill in parliament to bring the country’s legislation in line with the ECtHR judgment.

The Maltese constitutional court has similarly pronounced itself about the fundamental right of freedom of association which is protected by the country’s constitution.

In the case Philip Spiteri vs Sammy Meilaq [1995], the constitutional court found Meilaq guilty, as chairperson and in representation of the Malta Drydocks Corporation, of violation of the fundamental right of freedom of association, which includes the freedom not to associate in a trade union, when a number of workers of the corporation were denied overtime work on the basis of having refused to become members of the GWU.

The ECtHR has justified the workers’ resistance to joining a trade union for conscientious reasons such as when it toes a political party line, like the GWU had done when it supported the Labour government in prohibiting workers from resorting to industrial action and in using strike breakers to perform the work of striking employees.

Apart from being harmful to the workers, the closed shop policy has instilled a negative opinion about countries that have adopted it and it should, therefore, be banned altogether.

Those workers who want to join a trade union of their own free choice should nonetheless be left at liberty of doing so, while heavy penalties should be imposed by law on employers who harass workers into not joining a trade union.

However, the solution to this abuse by employers does not lie in foisting the closed shop.

One expects parliament to explore this form of workers’ abuse by employers in depth in its current debate on amendments to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act and to spell out a solution to the problem that would be translated into law.

It would reflect shortsightedness on the part of parliament if the debate focused solely on punishing employers for failing to pay their employees or to give them some other form of remuneration rightfully due to them.

Workers have a right to decide for themselves whether they should join a trade union and no one should take it away from them.

Non-unionised workers can still support a union in a trade dispute, in which case they would have the same right by law for protection against retaliation as their unionised counterparts.

Denis Tanti is a former assistant director at the health ministry.