The concept of industrial democracy has been evolving for over two centuries, ever since social theorists started speculating about socio-economic relations and social reorganisation in the wake of the French Revolution.

Industrial democracy was envisioned as a distant Eutopia, a system of workplace governance in which workers would be involved in decision-making processes and not treated as mere instruments of production.

A person, it was observed, is by nature a social and productive creature and, hence, the realisation of human potential can only be achieved through an ethical reorganisation of social and productive forces. Democratic principles had to be extended to the workplace for social and individual fulfilment.

Fast-forward two centuries and the attainment of industrial democracy is still considered as the hallmark of contemporary democratic and successful states. Workers are not only allowed but also encouraged to voice their concerns and ideas on how the workplace should be run.

Industrial democracy was also the ideal which our constitutional founders prioritised. Work and fundamental rights and freedoms were given primacy over all other considerations. After all, the very first line of our constitution boldly proclaims: “Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.”

Workers, we were promised, were to be guaranteed certain rights and liberties since the emergent state was to be founded upon their honest labour and industry.

However, the ultimate test of rights is not in their legal existence but in their concrete exercise. If the legislator nullifies the exercise of fundamental rights through stifling ordinary legislation – sometimes even of the secondary type and beyond what is reasonable in a democratic society – then these rights are practically forsaken in the pursuit of other nefarious ends.

These ends cannot ever be in workers’ interests. Even if ordinary legislation is not so constraining and controlling, the interpretation given to it by bureaucrats may be such as to hamper the exercise of such fundamental rights. Freedom of association and its allied rights under industrial law are a very significant part of the bedrock of a democracy.

The Constitution of Malta and the European Convention, in tandem, guarantee workers the fundamental right to freely associate with a trade union of their choice. This is deemed necessary as workers are regarded as the weaker party in the employment relationship. By forming trade unions, workers are enabled to attain a degree of negotiating power and redress the power imbalance between them and their employers.

Ordinary legislation complements this right by providing for the formation and registration of trade unions by groups of workers. Moreover, once a trade union is officially registered, it may register a trade dispute with the employer and may, consequently, issue industrial directives to protect the workers’ interests. One might say: “So far, so good.” However, in reality, the situation is not so simple.

The courageous endeavours of workers to form, register and animate new trade unions are bound to be stalled by bureaucratic machinations arising from a skewed interpretation of industrial law and an even more perverted interpretation of the constitutional rights upon which these are founded. Essentially, these obstacles relate to a deliberate conflation and confusion between collective bargaining as the sole prerogative of a trade union recognised by the employer, on the one hand, and the right to order industrial action, on the other.

In the public sector and public service, the most heinous ‘crime’ one can commit is observe union directives- Graham Sansone

The Employment and Industrial Relations Act clearly defines what constitutes collective bargaining. Likewise, it clearly identifies the grounds for the registration of a trade dispute in pursuance of which a trade union may order industrial action. The two concepts are deliberately and mistakenly merged so as to deny any registered trade union other than the union recognised by the employer the faculty of ordering industrial action.

This flawed interpretation of industrial law is intended to destroy the concept of the freedom of association. For what is the purpose of workers uniting to form a trade union if it is rendered powerless to protect their interests until it gains a majority?

Our industrial law bestows collective bargaining to the recognised union, yet, it does not deprive another registered trade union to declare a trade dispute and order industrial directives. If it were so, then the right to freedom of association would solely consist in being allowed to form a trade union and nothing more than that.

While collective bargaining is the preserve of the recognised (majority) union, the faculty to register a trade dispute and to follow it through with the declaration of industrial action is not. Otherwise, members of a minority union would be left without any form of protection unless they forgo their membership and join the majority union. Such an instance would reek of undemocratic practices.

It is my considered opinion that this sorry state of affairs is the result of a lack of understanding of a trade union’s functions. A trade union is much more than a vehicle for collective bargaining. Trade unions are primarily organisations for ensuring workers’ human dignity and not allowing it to be trampled upon by those who hold political or economic power.

Trade unions were originally conceived in order to protect workers from slave-labour, which the Industrial Revolution had engendered; nowadays, trade unions continue to have an equally important role in safeguarding their members from bullying, abusive, unsafe or unbecoming work situations. Unfortunately, this fundamental function of a trade union is not only overlooked but completely disregarded in the local milieu.

As I write, two senior lecturers have been dismissed from employment by the Institute of Tourism Studies. Their alleged wrongdoing? Simply having allegedly followed their union’s directives. Meanwhile, employees in state-funded employment who faced much more serious charges than “unofficial industrial action” remain in their posts.

It seems that in the public sector and public service the most heinous ‘crime’ that one can commit is observe union directives. It does not matter if your health and safety and professional integrity are at stake.

It is indeed a sad reflection that, in contemporary society, workers’ rights, freedom of association and the rule of law are merely words written on worthless paper.

Graham Sansone is executive head of the Union of Professional Educators.