Despite the UHM threat, the government intends to go ahead with the signing of the privatisation agreement, which is scheduled for today at 5pm.

The UHM said that after meetings it had held last week, it was clear that Malta Freeport had not changed its position on the shift system that is in place in the engineering department and the financial package being offered. It said it was prepared to order industrial action.

Late last week, the government announced that an agreement on the privatisation of the Freeport was to be signed today. But the union insisted that the new collective agreements should be signed before the Freeport is privatised.

It claimed that the lack of agreement on three collective agreements for the various sectors of the Freeport was not the fault of the union but of the government. The union had been for months insisting on an agreement for the middle management sector, but it had received no reply until last week.

The union said it appreciated the importance of the privatisation of the Freeport because this would help investment in the machinery and infrastructure. But it cannot accept that the privatisation agreement is signed before the collective agreements are finalised.

In its reply, the Ministry of Investment, IT and Industry said that the UHM was showing “industrial immaturity” by wanting to compromise its relationship with the new management before they even started.

Discussions on the collective agreements have been going on for months. The government wanted to conclude the accord before privatising the company, saying that it wanted to safeguard workers’ interests once the privatisation process is completed. In this sense, it had agreed with the Freeport buyers that no workers will be dismissed for 30 years.

The UHM had behaved in an inexplicable way. The government had twice delayed the

signing of the privatisation agreement. Both the government and the Freeport had accepted the union’s claims, one after the other, but the union kept returning with more requests that were unjustified.

The latest of such incidents took place on 27 September when, the government said, the union had agreed with the conclusions reached and was going to ask its members to approve the collective agreements before the signing of the privatisation accord, scheduled for today.

The UHM, however, did not ask its members to approve the agreements; instead, it divided the members into two groups and held separate meetings. The members knew that they were not going to be asked to approve the agreements.

The ministry said this was a tactic that was being used to stall the privatisation agreement again. It added that one crucial element that had been agreed with the UHM on 27 September was that the workers would know when their days off are going to be. This proposal had been agreed to, despite it having being amended twice by the UHM and despite the fact that it meant extra costs for the company.

Apart from this, the collective agreements included that all employees would receive Lm175 in arrears for the period July 2003 to December 2004; a Lm2 weekly wage increase per year in 2005 and 2006; a 10c increase in the allowance for crane operators (another 50c weekly increase) and an improvement in the incentive schemes based on the number of containers.

These are all increases that are permissible only because the Freeport will be privatised, the ministry said. The guarantee that no workers will be dismissed for 30 years will only be applicable if the privatisation agreement is signed.

After agreeing in principle, the UHM decided to make more requests without justification, the ministry said. Instead of the Lm175 the government will be paying in arrears, the union wanted the employees to receive an extra Lm2 weekly rise over and above those already agreed. This is unacceptable, the ministry said.

Another claim by the UHM is an increase in the substitution allowances workers receive for working as substitutes on Saturdays and Sundays, which today amount to Lm12 and Lm21 respectively. The ministry said that this was an “ironic request” because Saturday has been included as a working day and therefore should not be considered as an extra day.

Considering that the freeport ended its last two operating years with a deficit because of unfavourable exchange rates and oil prices, that the productivity rate at the freeport was lower than that of its competitors and the generosity on the part of the the freeport to accept wage increases, it must be realised that the UHM’s claims are not justified.

The UHM was forgetting that the freeport needed fresh investment in machinery. If it does not get this, the company will be less competitive. If the privatisation does not take place, the guarantee that no jobs will be lost for 30 years will not exist. Instead, the dismissal of a number of workers is “almost for sure”.

The government encouraged UHM members to see the opportunity they have. They should not think that by delaying the privatisation exercise they will receive more benefits. The offer that has been presented to them is the best they can get.

Minister Austin Gatt appealed to the UHM to withdraw its threat of industrial action, honour the commitment it has made and get its members to approve the agreement.