It is not my intention to encourage trade unions to resort to industrial action of whatever nature to iron out differences which inevitably arise from time to time at the place of work.   On the contrary, I strongly believe that through meaningful social dialogue, if not all, the absolute majority of the trade disputes can be addresed satisfactorily.

Now that an agreement has been reached between Government and Alpa, I wish to delve not much into the detail of the agreement reached but on the coercive measure which Government resorted to once it was evident that Alpa was on the verge of taking industrial action.   In retaliation to the threat of industrial action, Government filed a prohibitory injunction against Alpa and its individual committee members, and held Alpa responsible for damages.

Let me put the cards on the table.  Undoubtedly it is desirable for all, as far as is reasonably practicable, that all industrial disputes are resolved through collective bargaining.  I support all lawful initiatives, such as conciliation, mediation and if necessary arbitration, all intended to help the parties locked in an industrial dispute resolve their differences.

Collective bargaining is an important process which, when entered into in good faith, should be of benefit to both sides, management on the one and the unions representing the workers at any particular place of work on the other. However, collective agreements are often the source of industrial disputes.  A well-negotiated collective agreement is the optimum both sides should aspire to, and either party should avoid pulling a fast one on the other.  That would only work in the short term and the effects would be disastrous in the long term.

Indeed, large measures of patience and perseverance are required. These two qualities are needed by those sitting at the negotiations table.  It is pertinent to affirm that both employers and trade unions can resort to industrial action to preserve and protect what they believe to be in their best interest. Trade unions can resort to industrail actions while employers who are members of an employers’ organisation can lock out workers from their place of work.  Though, none of these actions would address any outstanding and unresolved trade dispute between the parties concerned.  Nonetheless, it must be noted that these are acquired rights that and are well-enshrined in our labour legislation and which are supported by two ILO Conventions ratified soon after Malta became an independent state in 1964. 

I have decided to pen this piece after I was sure that the industrial dispute between the management of the national courier Air Malta and Alpa, the Airline Pilots’ Association, had been adequaely addressed and resolved, even if at the eleventh hour, to the satisfaction of both parties. Although it is now history, it is worth looking into the dispute and try to decipher whether Government, which incidentally is a labour government, has once again stepped on the rights of the trade unions.       

For the benefit of those who are not well acquainted with the Government-Alpa dispute, here is some background information.  At the end of last year, of the four unions representing the different categories of workers at Air Malta, Alpa was the last remaining union that had not reached an agreement with Government over the restructuring programme for the national airline.  This triggered industrial tension at Air Malta, which increased considerably after the pilots, members of Alpa, in their great majority voted to authorise their Union to order industrial action that could possibly stop the service albeit on a different issue. 

What is of concern is the approach that the management of Air Malta adopted when faced with a threat of industrial action by Alpa.  When faced with this threat, Government filed a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the Union collectively and against its committee members individually. In filing the warrant, Air Malta claimed that the issues which the Union had ordered industrial action over did not fall under the legal definition of “industrial dispute” as laid down in Chapter 452 of the laws of Malta.  The Court, presided by Judge Toni Abela, upheld the request for the warrant of prohibitory injunction to be issued.

But a look back at similar situation that ensued in 1998 is surely warranted, and might be appropriate eye-opener.  Back in January 1998, an MLP-led Government sought redress in the law courts against the UHM. The UHM resorted to industrial action at the Malta Freeport and other public service and government entities following the announcement of hefty increases in the water and electricity tariffs.  Back then, Judge Albert J. Magri found against the UHM and decided that the directives issued by the UHM against the Malta Freeport were illegal and abusive.  

But in 2001, when reconsidering the merits of the case in question, the Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion.  Unlike the First Court, the Court of Appeal found that the subject of contention qualified as an industrial dispute according to the Industrial Relations Act since it was connected to the conditions of employment. The Court ruled that the action taken by the UHM against Freeport Terminals (Malta) plc was taken in view of an industrial dispute or in furtherance of an industrial dispute, and therefore were not illegal. The action was secondary action made in sympathy, and therefore covered by immunity as contemplated by the law.  

Those who are familiar with or involved in conducting industrial relations are well aware that, very often, strategies from the employers’ perspective and manoeuvres from the trade unions’ side come into play during negotiations and collective bargaining.  Even when in the eyes of the general public everything appears to be moving towards a deadlock, in most cases both sides leave the door ajar and move swiftly to forge an agreement once both parties realise that there is no room for improvement on the conditions already bagged, be it from the trade union’s point of view or the management’s. 

In most cases common sense, luckily, prevails.  It is understandable, both parties have to work together to ensure profitability and sustainability in the longer time.  If the company goes bust, then there is not much to negotiate and the workers stand to lose just as much.   Without doubt there is no room for trigger-happy unions, but neither is there room for a heavy-handed Government with the trade unions.   

[email protected]