Last October Josef Bugeja became general secretary of the General Workers’ Union. He speaks to Kurt Sansone about the controversial ARMS lease, trade unionism, Air Malta, the relationship with Labour and... listening.
Where do you want to take the GWU?
I have always believed in having a properly trained workforce. I also believe union representatives have to be trained in trade union work such as collective bargaining, conflict resolution and negotiation.
This helps foster industrial peace, which contributes to more efficiency and production. This will enable us to make requests for better work conditions and pay rises.
The GWU should be a centre of ideas not controversies. I see a union that speaks to everyone. We can find common ground with other social partners.
I want to see a proactive GWU that is not just a progressive force but a unifying factor in society. We have met Caritas to seek collaboration and are working on a programme targeting vulnerable people.
Does this mean a less militant GWU?
Militancy has to be viewed within the context of a negotiation process. When I meet management to discuss collective agreements ideas are exchanged. Some clauses are changed or deleted, others are added but some can present difficulties. When disagreement persists unions have strike action as a last resort. It is a tool guaranteed at law. Unions primarily have five roles: defending individuals, collective bargaining on behalf of a workforce, being a collaborative partner to management to enable the company to face up to the challenges of globalisation, taking part in forums for social partners in Malta and abroad, and being a social movement.
The tools trade unionists have are used according to the circumstances that each of these five roles present. If the government were to increase electricity prices by 200 per cent, as a trade unionist I will not shy away from protesting in the streets because it is our right.
Some argue the GWU has gone quiet because Labour is in government.
I was the union’s section secretary for the public sector under the previous administration and when I used to ask for meetings the reply used to be “I will consider whether to meet you”.
It could be that the current government is listening to us more than the previous administration.
When the Enemalta [part-privatisation] issue cropped up we held a series of discussions with the minister to solve the problems that were cropping up. In fact there were very little complaints from workers. The same happened with the modernisation of the Gozo Hospital [which will be run by a private company]. We saw the difficulties ahead and were given job guarantees by the government. The workers will remain government employees, discipline will remain the remit of the Public Service Commission and workers will get training opportunities.
If a Nationalist government adopts a similar listening approach I will not have a problem. It makes no difference to me who is in government.
But we have taken action over the past two-and-a-half years, suffice to say we ordered a one-day bus strike. There are also numerous cases of ongoing industrial action at different government agencies.
Let’s take the Air Malta issue. The government intends part-privatising the airline, unions are in the dark and when asked, the Tourism Minister could not guarantee that all workers will retain their job with the company.
It makes no difference to me who is in government
It has already happened in the past that not all employees were retained with the company in agreement with the union. I am for a negotiated solution. The union and its shop stewards will be meeting the minister this week to discuss the Air Malta issue and understand what the future holds for the airline.
Do you expect to be given information?
Yes.
The government has justified withholding information from the public because negotiations are at a delicate stage. Do you accept the government adopting this approach with you as well?
I can understand that information is given at the appropriate time but what I wouldn’t want is a minister coming up to us with a sealed agreement.
But isn’t this what is going to happen?
I cannot predict the future but judging from what happened with the St Luke’s and Gozo hospitals, the government met us and discussed solutions. We found solutions that were good for both sides. I have always striven for a win-win situation in talks with employers and have always explained to workers that we do not have to adopt an ‘us-and-them’ mentality.
It is often said the airline’s head office, where most are GWU members, is overstaffed when compared with other airlines. Do you know whether they will be at the forefront of job cuts at the airline?
We have absolutely no information on this. We have to start a process of consultation. Consultation is very important to me because it will lead to agreement. But consultation must not be fake and as yet, over the past two-and-a-half years, we did not have fake consultation. The conditions we secured over the government’s hospitals plan are big in terms of training opportunities and work benefits.
A survey conducted by the Forum of Trade Unions last year found that a third of workers only belonged to a union. Two-thirds of those not unionised said they felt they could take care of themselves. Are unions still relevant?
Yes and the survey results showed this. More than 50 per cent said unions helped prevent work place discrimination. Some 70 per cent said they benefitted from a very good service from unions. These are positive figures. Another 10 per cent said they were willing to join a union but nobody had ever approached them. It is these people that I have to target.
As a union we are targeting different sectors and recently we drafted a paper with film producers. We are approaching professional work environments such as the iGaming sector, where not everyone enjoys good conditions.
The question is not whether unions are still relevant – I strongly believe they are – but whether the services offered by them are still relevant to today’s circumstances. The structure of the GWU has to reflect its members’ needs.
But there is also relevance on the national and European levels. The GWU has always been a voice for workers. In a neo-liberal environment unions are the social face and a counterbalance to prevent ruthless market forces from running roughshod over workers.
Your honeymoon at the helm did not last long. The National Audit Office found that the GWU breached the conditions of its lease agreement with the government when it sub-let space in its building to utility billing company ARMS. The union contends otherwise. Why?
Our disagreement with the NAO’s conclusions is backed by legal opinion. Before we submitted our bid to host the ARMS office we officially wrote to the Land Department informing it of our intentions but we did not receive a reply. At the same time the union sought legal advice and the answer we got was that if the lease was redeemed, certain conditions in the original agreement would be nullified. There is no law dictating this but case law does exist to support our position. If the government decides to take up the matter with us, the issue will have to be dealt with in the appropriate forum – the law courts.
The NAO reported that advice given by the Attorney General to the Government Property Division stated that the original conditions still stood despite the redemption of the lease.
We contend otherwise. In court you have one case but two parties arguing their sides. If the government, through the Attorney General, decides to take action against the GWU, I will defend my case based on the legal advice we have. But in all this nobody has said that the GWU bid was the cheapest by far. Nobody pointed out this was a public tendering process that was scrutinised over and over again. It will have to be an institution like the court to tell me I did something wrong...
The NAO said the GWU did something wrong.
The NAO report distinguishes between the period before and after the lease was redeemed and recommends two different courses of action. It also admits that the situation was not clear cut after the GWU redeemed the lease. The Times of Malta recently raised the issue of social housing and linked it to this case [in actual fact the ramifications had also been raised by a government spokesman]. The two issues are distinct because social housing involves subsidised leases, which is not the case with this building [the GWU headquarters]. I am comforted by legal advice from a team of lawyers outside the union.
Let us take a step back. The NAO reported that former general secretary Tony Zarb had told the government property division head “the pertinent authorities” knew and asked him not to cause problems when the latter said a parliamentary resolution was needed to change lease conditions. Who are these pertinent authorities?
I have no idea and the NAO never interviewed Tony Zarb. I have no idea who the ‘pertinent authorities’ are and I never asked him.
Was there a prior agreement with the Labour Party?
I absolutely and categorically deny this in the strongest possible way. There was a selection process during which they also evaluated the fact that the office space we offered was ready for use because we originally planned to move a group of our own employees there.
But your cheque to the government property division redeeming the lease has not yet been cashed.
Are suspicions being raised simply because we are the GWU?
I only got to know of this from the Times of Malta. I do not know why. If there was something wrong, it is up to the government to take action. I cannot answer for the government. The GWU has legal advice and I believe in it. If the case ends up in court I will debate it there. If the court rules against the union, it will have to abide by that decision.
But the NAO report pointed out that the lease redemption did not happen from day one. It only happened after the NAO investigation got under way. The NAO also said that during the bidding process the GWU had not highlighted the lease conditions attached to its property.
We had legal advice that once the lease is redeemed the conditions would have be nullified and so I did not have to highlight the issue during the bidding process. If the advice we were given was to the contrary, we would not have bid in the first place.
But the process to redeem the lease happened when the NAO started investigating last year.
The process started before [2014] when we informed the Land Department in writing of our intention. There was a lengthy process that involved collecting the necessary documentation and contracts. The cheque was deposited in court after this process.
Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon told the NAO that in his opinion any change to lease conditions had to be approved by parliamentary resolution.
That is his opinion… I believe my version. I believe in the GWU and I will defend it but I also have to make sure that I act correctly. I am accountable not only to the newspapers and society but also to my members and council. Every action is scrutinised.
The NAO also noted that lease conditions had been broken in the past when the union sub-let areas to Sciacca Grill, a restaurant, and Untours, a travel agency, in which the GWU was not a majority shareholder. At least in these two cases the union definitely broke lease conditions.
But when we redeemed the lease the situation was regularised.
Are you admitting you were in the wrong?
No. Where the restaurant is situated there had always been a catering outlet, a canteen, with both an internal and external entrance.
A canteen is one thing, but a restaurant run by a private company is another.
In the past, even when it was just a canteen it was run by third parties. The GWU never ran its canteen. I strongly believe we did nothing wrong.
So the NAO is not correct on this point.
Yes, definitely. I have repeated this and will argue the case in court.
You believe the GWU did nothing wrong.
The union did nothing wrong.
You have denied a prior agreement with the Labour Party but there is another case involving union property being rented out to Transport Malta, a government agency. This raises questions as to whether the union is being accommodated by the government.
No. If I have a property and the government issues a call for tenders, are you telling me the GWU does not have a right to bid like anybody else? Why should the GWU be treated differently from other tenderers? What is wrong if my offer is better and is chosen? The process was public.
Transport Malta wanted office space and we bid like anybody else. The media scrutinised the process. We were the cheapest and offered the best deal. Does that mean we were being accommodated? Could it be our offer was the best? Are suspicions being raised simply because we are the GWU? If this is the case it is unfair… I do not want to lie and I have no reason to lie.