GWU rejects service shortcomings charges

The government and the General Workers' Union were yesterday engaged in a verbal ping-pong over the quality of service offered by Cargo Handling Co. Ltd as the future of the port merchandise operator hangs in the balance.

The GWU, as shareholders of the CHCL, has in the meantime confirmed it would be bidding for the operation of various port services when a call for tenders is issued early next year.

The existing contract of CHCL expires in July 2006.

Speaking during a news conference, GWU general secretary Tony Zarb said there was no guarantee that the tender for the provision of port services would result in a better service and cheaper prices.

He described the CHCL's position at the ports as a "regulated monopoly" because, contrary to perception, the company was not free to do as it pleases.

In a letter to the minister, and circulated to the press, the union rebutted each of the shortcomings which the Malta Maritime Authority levelled at CHCL.

Mr Zarb denied that CHCL was raising tariffs at the port as it pleased. It was an odd accusation, he said, considering that the union had been given an indication that the new tender would not stipulate that fees would be regularised.

Mr Zarb provided statistics to show that CHCL was only getting about 12 per cent of the cost share of the ports and not the majority of the port revenue, as had been claimed.

The GWU lamented that several requests to hold meetings to discuss and possibly rectify any deficiencies had been ignored by the authorities.

It said the company regularly maintains and repairs its equipment and each operator was given the necessary training. Mr Zarb noted that CHCL was paying the MMA a total of Lm100,000 a year to use the machinery.

He strongly denied that the company's workers were responsible for keeping the port-enclosed areas in good and clean working order. On the contrary, some structures, which fell under the responsibility of the MMA, required extensive maintenance.

The GWU took the opportunity to throw back the ball into the MMA's court, saying that external security at the ports left much to be desired. As a result, the number of claims for theft was large.

Still, Mr Zarb said that CHCL was prepared to make the necessary readjustments and further investment to maintain its presence at the ports.

In a statement, Competitiveness Minister Censu Galea maintained that CHCL received 30 per cent of the global revenue.

The minister said that the port reform exercise was a collective effort to enhance and improve all sectors operating within the port. This was being done, among other reasons, to attract more work to the port and reduce tariffs, which would in the process benefit port workers.

Every attempt made by the GWU to give the impression that the government had an agenda solely against CHCL was "completely out of line" and was no more than a futile attempt to win unjustified sympathy, Mr Galea said.

The minister said he was bewildered by the fact that the GWU had shot down each of the shortcomings listed by the MMA when facts showed otherwise. "The company's attitude to try and justify every contractual shortcoming by saying the claims were false, contrasts with what all the port sectors had to say."

Any "weak reply" to discredit the clauses agreed with the MMA shows the commercial immaturity of the management and shareholder, Mr Galea said.

"The government insisted that the process for tendering for the management of merchandise was part of an exercise to reform the ports and not some individual company."

The MMA said it would be giving an official reaction to the GWU's claims in the coming days. It noted with disappointment that CHCL was trying to give the impression that it was doing a sterling job when this was not the case.