Brincat files protest over 'false' declarations on overtime

The Deputy Leader of the Malta Labour Party, Joseph Brincat, yesterday filed a judicial protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court against Simon Busuttil, head of the Malta-European Union Information Centre (MIC), and against Joseph R. Grima, Permanent Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office.

In his protest, Dr Brincat declared he had exercised his democratic right to broadcast the rules of the EU with regard to working hours. He had also drawn the public's attention to the implications of an EU directive on overtime work.

Dr Brincat said that in reply, Mr Grima had, on February 19, issued a circular to all heads of departments informing them that despite the information published in the media, there were no restrictions on overtime work in respect of employees of the government or of government companies.

Furthermore, Dr Busuttil had continued to publish information that overtime work would remain the prerogative of the employee and that there would be no limit on overtime work.

These declarations, claimed Dr Brincat, were false and misleading, for the EU directive on this issue had specified that hours of overtime work were to be regulated by member states.

The Maltese government, said Dr Brincat, had been entitled to request a concession from this principle, but the derogation obtained was limited both by time and with regard to certain sectors of the local economy.

According to the draft treaty of accession between Malta and the EU, the limitation on overtime would not apply until July 31, 2004 in the manufacturing sub-sectors of food and beverages, textiles, clothing and footwear, transport equipment, electrical machinery, appliances and supplies and furniture.

The limitation would not apply until December 31, 2004 in respect of collective agreements existing on December 12, 2001 in the said sectors where the collective agreements contained restrictions on this issue beyond July 31 of that year.

It was therefore clear, said Dr Brincat, that neither government employees nor all other employees would be able to work as much overtime as they wished.

On the contrary, the state would be obliged to guarantee that no employee worked more than 48 hours over seven days on average. The only exception to this rule was that of the manufacturing sector, and again the exemption was only until 2004.

Dr Brincat added that both Dr Busuttil and Mr Grima were aware of the limited derogation obtained by Malta, but that both respondents were acting in order to benefit the government by issuing false information.

Dr Brincat concluded his protest by calling upon respondents to issue correct information and to withdraw the misleading information they had given.

Dr Busuttil and Mr Grima yesterday filed a counter-protest, declaring that Dr Brincat's protest was an abuse of the judicial system, for it was not aimed at protecting any of Dr Brincat's civil rights or in preparation for the filing of a suit.

On the contrary, it had been filed for propaganda purposes.

According to respondents, it seemed as though Dr Brincat had not understood the significance of the EU directive relating to the rights of the workers.

The directive entitled employees in any sector to refuse to work more overtime hours than those stipulated in the directive itself.

The directive also removed the right of the employer to insist that employees worked overtime. Thus, in other words, the directive was aimed at strenghtening the rights of the employees, and it did not diminish the employees' right to work overtime, provided that they wished to do so.

Dr Brincat, respondents added, had only quoted part of the EU directive, for he had failed to quote the part that stipulated that member states would have the option to apply this directive while respecting the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers.

The member states had also to take the necessary measures to ensure that no employer could require a worker to work more than 48 hours over a seven-day period unless the worker had agreed to perform such work.

Dr Busuttil and Mr Grima declared they assumed Dr Brincat had quoted and interpreted the EU directive incorrectly through error or lack of attention, and not deliberately.

They further assumed that once Dr Brincat had received this explanation, he would study the EU directive properly, correct himself, and withdraw all the defamatory allegations made in their regard.

Respondents concluded their counter-protest by calling upon Dr Brincat not to continue with his allegations.

The protest was signed by Dr Brincat himself.

The Attorney General, Dr Anthony Borg Barthet, signed the counter-protest.