Conclude the collective agreement

The conditions of work for University academic staff at the University are no longer tolerable. A wait of five years to conclude the new collective agreement is already causing irreparable harm to the University. How can one expect to attract to our University professors with all virtues of being erudite teachers, outstanding researchers and specialist consultants in their field to industry and government alike with these conditions of work?

The appropriate agreement like that reached recently with the medical union has demonstrated that the Government seems to have finally accepted this plain fact. A suitable agreement for University academic staff should be reached now on the same lines. Who can predict what the attitude of a new Cabinet or a totally new government will be?

A few years ago, University academic staff had to suffer the humiliation of witnessing the postponement of discussions over the long-expired collective agreement due to a dispute over representation between the University of Malta Academic Staff Association (UMASA) and the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT).

After some time, good sense prevailed and UMASA and MUT sat round a table and reached agreement on a modus vivendi that satisfied both sides. This unification of forces immediately bore the first fruit when a small interim increase was obtained for all academic staff and this remuneration was de facto paid at the end of December.

There were also some other minor but also very valuable achievements, such as convincing the Work Resources Committee to use a 'visa' system to control the use of the funds awarded as academic resources. A small but very valuable step forward. Congratulations to all concerned on these achievements. This involved some hard work.

Last December, a report on the common ground between the University and unions' positions, as well as on points that require more in-depth discussion, was prepared by a collective agreement working group, made up of Silvio Debono, University human relations consultant, Chris Soler, University legal consultant, Michael Saliba, UMASA secretary, and Prof. Alex Felice, MUT delegate.

The report was presented to the University and the unions' negotiation teams at a meeting held last month. A schedule for detailed negotiation meetings was drawn up whereby the UMASA, MUT and University teams agreed to meet for three hours every week on a regular basis to expedite the negotiation process.

Many feel that the meetings are not frequent enough, considering the five-year delay to start negotiations and the proximity of the general election. It would have been much wiser for the negotiation teams to meet twice, or better still, three times a week.

Also, in contrast to what unions customarily do, UMASA promised total openness throughout the discussions. Therefore, UMASA members expected the union's proposals to be made known to them. One realises that this puts a great onus on the UMASA leadership, but the option to release all information available was UMASA's choice and the main reason for its raison d'etre.

No one ever doubted the MUT's good intentions and that it always acted in the best of faith to achieve excellent working conditions for the academic staff. Yet every negotiation was carried out with the utmost secrecy from start to finish. Academic members objected to this style of negotiation and this was the main reason why they established their house association and pressure group, which was later changed into a trade union.

Therefore it is sacrosanct for the UMASA to consult academic staff at each and every stage. Members of the academic staff also expect all discussions to be concluded in a couple of weeks' time so that these may be ratified by the union members and the Government before the imminent general election. If this is not done then the academic staff would have committed what it is tantamount to a suicidal act.