GWU proposes drastic cuts to list of essential services

The General Workers` Union has called for drastic cuts to the list of workers which the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill deems as providing an essential service. Such people would not be able to go out on strike.

The amendments the union is proposing to the bill were handed to journalists yesterday as the bill started being considered by the House Committee for the Consideration of Bills.

As provided in the bill, the GWU proposal on the list of essential services includes the staff of the air traffic control centre and the airport fire fighting section as well as the members of the assistance and rescue force.

The union, however, excludes from its list persons who the bill says are "employed to provide port safety and emergency services including pilotage and mooring, tug services, fire fighting, medical health services and pollution combating services; persons employed in pilotage mooring and tug services as well as port workers needed to import and discharge essential supplies including wheat, grain, domestic gas, aviation fuel, diesel and petrol and fuel oils for the operation of air transport facilities, power generation and water production facilities".

The union also proposes that the schedule attached to the bill (on emergency services) may be amended by parliamentary resolution or by the prime minister by order in the Government Gazette so long as such an order does not increase the total number of officers to more than 70 and only after negotiating with the trade union representing the workers involved.

To date, the bill lays down that the schedule may be amended by the prime minister by order in the gazette after consultation with the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD).

The union is also proposing that the definition of "family" in the bill should include single parents and the definition of "parent" should include adoptive and foster parents.

As expected, the GWU has also proposed an amendment to the definition of "worker" to allow for the possibility of sympathy strikes.

The union is suggesting that the Employment Relations Board should be composed of the Director for Employment and Industrial Relations as chairman, three independent representatives appointed by the minister responsible for labour, four representatives nominated by national workers` organisations sitting on the MCESD and four representatives of employers from national employers` organisations on the council.

The bill provides that the board shall have an independent chairman and its members would be the Director for Employment and Industrial Relations, three representatives each nominated by employers and trade unions on the MCESD and two appointed by the minister.

Attending the sitting of the Committee for the Consideration of Bills debating the new labour law were representatives of the Union Haddiema Maghqudin, the GWU and employers.

Also present was former prime minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, with whom members of the opposition were seen regularly liaising. Dr Mifsud Bonnici is consultant to the GWU.

Social Policy Minister Lawrence Gonzi explained that several definitions had been taken from the Conditions of Employment (Regulation) Act and the Industrial Relations Act, which the bill was replacing. There were also new definitions, including for collective agreement and employees` representative.

Moving an amendment to the definition of collective agreement, Dr Gonzi said the present definition meant that an employer could reach a collective agreement with only a number of employees. It was now being changed to ensure collective representation.

Another amendment was to the definition of worker in order to make it the exact equivalent of what was currently contained in the IRA. The definition of employees` representative was aimed at ensuring there would be a workers` representative at a place of work where there was no recognised union.

The aim of the representative, Dr Gonzi said, was not to negotiate a collective agreement but to focus on situations where an employer had a duty to consult workers, such as in collective redundancies and mergers.

Labour MP Anglu Farrugia asked if a collective agreement could be negotiated with a union that represented the workers of a particular establishment but which was not recognised by an employer.

In such instances or in instances where a union did not exist, workers could choose their point of contact, Dr Gonzi explained. However, this particular point was not referring to collective bargaining.

And in a situation where two unions represented the workers, both would have the right for a representative if both enjoyed recognition.

Labour MP Karl Chircop asked if non-unionised workers, or workers who were members of a non-recognised union, had a right to elect their representative. What powers was the law giving them?

Dr Gonzi said an employer was obliged to recognise a union where this represented 50 per cent plus one of the workers and the union would speak on behalf of all workers even those who were not its members.

Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro asked if an employer was bound to discuss with two unions fighting for recognition, both claiming they had majority membership. Debate on this point was suspended.

Dr Gonzi said the definition of family appearing in the bill had been lifted from the CERA but would now be deleted because an article in the CERA that laid down that family members of an employer were not covered by the protection extended by the law was in fact not included in the new law.

According to the new law, he said, family members of an employer had a right for protection in the same manner as the other workers.

Ms Coleiro called for the inclusion of the definition of family even if this was not specifically mentioned. She called for the adoption of the United Nations` definition.

Dr Gonzi said that clause two defined terminology used in the law. The only instance in the law where family was being mentioned was when discussing leave for "urgent family reasons".

Ms Coleiro argued that besides this point, there were also several implicit references to the family in the proposed law.

And even the term "urgent family reasons" called for an explanation as to the family concept. If a partner in a cohabiting relationship died, would the other partner be given leave for "urgent family reasons" in order to attend the funeral?

Dr Gonzi said a legal notice would lay down clear parameters as to what "urgent family reasons" could be. The notice was already published in the White Paper and both positive and negative comments were received. The notice in the White Paper had already given an indication of what "urgent family reasons" were.

The legal notice, Dr Gonzi said, would establish the national minimum standards and before such notice was published, the minister would have to bring it to the attention of the Employment Relations Board.

The debate continues tomorrow.