The chamber, echoing a similar press statement issued by the Federation of Industry, said it appreciated that this amendment may be influenced by the need to instill stricter health and safety measures and precautions. Nevertheless, it still feels that this amendment is unfair and detrimental to all employers especially those in the manufacturing industries where employees are more exposed to injuries. This belief is in line with that of other private sector organisations who have recently expressed themselves in a similar vein.

The chamber acknowledges that it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that employees follow the right safety procedures. It is an accepted fact that if an employee refuses to abide by safety regulations, then the employer has sufficient grounds for dismissal. So, in effect, an employer should theoretically be able to minimise cases of employee negligence.

Although the minister clearly explained the reasons for this amendment, the chamber feared that the ultimate result would be that the negligent employee might not feel the effect of this amendment, because according to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act [Sec 36 (15)], the employer would still be obliged to pay injury leave for up to 12 months.

For this reason, the chamber believes that this amendment to the Social Security Act requires a complementary amendment to be made in the above-mentioned section of the EIRA. The chamber has already taken steps to ensure that the matter is adequately considered by the responsible authorities, including the Employment Relations Board.

If the ultimate objective of preventing occupational hazards is to be realised, the chamber strongly believes that the government should also update the EIRA in the same spirit as it is amending the Social Security Act.

In a reply, the Department of Social Security said that in establishing the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, the government was primarily guided by the standards of Safety in the Work Environment as is required in terms of the provisions of the European Social Charter, to which Malta is a party. The department pointed out that this amendment refers to the specific situation which regulates entitlement to a Social Security benefit, and does not affect the conditions of employment in any way.

The proposed amendment is fair with regards to employers, whether private or otherwise, the department said.

When the injury results from negligence on the part of the employee (by disregarding safety precautions s/he is obliged to take in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act), the disqualification of injury benefits effectively means that the claim for injury benefit is not considered as an injury at work. Just as in the case of injuries occurring outside the place of work, the employee would only be entitled to sickness benefit for the duration of his or her certified incapacity (and not to injury benefit).

Over the years, the department said it received a number of complaints by employers themselves alleging that injury benefit was being awarded by the Department of Social Security, even though employers had evidence that the employer took all safety measures required at law, but the employee was negligent and had manifestly contributed to the accident.

Employers also complained that notwithstanding compliance with Health and Safety Regulations on their part, the Social Security Act provided injury benefit indiscriminately. Concurrently, the department received complaints from employees stating that Health and Safety provisions were non-evident at their place of work.

This amendment to the Social Security Act is intended to ensure that both employers and employees follow health and safety regulations and procedures for the benefit of both, the department said.