From Dr M. Gauci

I refer to your front-page article entitled The long asbestos saga of Enemalta workers (TMIS, 10 December) and regret that the allegations made about the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) were incorrect and unjust. To this end, allow me to put the record straight about the correct succession of events.

The OHSA received a number of calls, over several months, from an anonymous caller who on every occasion claimed that asbestos could be found at Enemalta. The caller was asked repeatedly to provide further information about the case, and specifically the location where he thought that asbestos might be present. On all occasions the caller refused to give such information and further details, in spite of assurances that he could remain anonymous. In the light of this lack of information, the OHSA could not investigate the case in question. This was explained to the caller, who still refused to indicate the location in question.

At the end of August 2006, we received a copy of a letter sent to Enemalta’s chairman by a lawyer representing a number of Enemalta employees, which outlined the case at the Marsa Power Station. I immediately contacted the lawyer concerned and stressed the rights of the workers and their health and safety representatives with regard to information about their health and safety, as stipulated in Legal Notice 36 of 2003, which had to complement other specific rights pertaining to asbestos emanating from Legal Notice 123 of 2003. I also explained the various calls, which the OHSA could not investigate due to lack of information. This was also communicated in writing.

A letter was also sent to Enemalta clearly referring to the legal responsibilities of an employer regarding health and safety.

Contrary to what this person claimed – that nobody from the OHSA visited the premises – the OHSA made a number of visits and investigated both this and other cases at Enemalta where information was forthcoming by those making the complaints. Action was taken on every account. Indeed, during and following the inspection (which was carried out in October) about the case in point, reference was made to the requirement of having workers’ health and safety representatives in position, in view of the fact that they would have had the power to request copies of the said documentation.

It was only in mid-November that a phone call was received at the OHSA premises from an Enemalta employee, who this time identified himself by name and also said that he was the person who had previously called our offices but had refused to give us specific information.

Enemalta was again contacted and informed that withholding information from the workers or their health and safety representatives was illegal. The OHSA also requested copies of the certification regarding the presence or otherwise of asbestos fibre concentrations and of the relevant risk assessments conducted to determine whether any Enemalta employee could have been exposed to such fibre concentrations. We also submitted these requests in writing.

A copy of the requested certificates were sent by Enemalta on 4 December and reached our offices on 11 December, with a letter stating that copies had also been sent to the lawyer representing the employees.

The OHSA is aware that a meeting has taken place between Enemalta and this lawyer, at which the certificates were presented and the case discussed. The agreement, to the knowledge of the OHSA, was that should there be any further problems on the part of the employees, they were to contact Enemalta. To date, no such complaints have been lodged.

In spite of these developments, the person who had phoned the OHSA (and whom I am choosing not to name out of courtesy) has still decided to blacken the OHSA’s name. Indeed, he even sent an email to another government department (that was forwarded to us) in which he once again indulges in calumny, to the detriment of the OHSA.

Indeed, his attempt at defamation was regrettably even successful with your paper.

It was indeed following action by the OHSA that the workers’ health and safety representatives were appointed by management, following various calls for nominations from among the workers – who showed no interest in electing such representatives among themselves, as is their right by law. With this lack of interest on the part of the workers, and the follow-up action on the part of the management, the OHSA naturally did not deem it appropriate to take action against the management.

This case, with its long-bearing “sagas”, would have been avoided completely, had the employees elected/appointed a health and safety representative at the time when this was being requested. Indeed, their claim would have been raised quicker and would have had legal basis immediately – it is the workers’ health and safety representative who has a right to see health and safety certificates, and not a trade union representative.

It is not difficult to verify of facts. It is, however, crucial in order to draw the line between sensationalism and slander on the part of someone who might have ulterior motives and the credibility of substantiated facts and actions, as was the case in this instance.

Dr Mark Gauci

Chief Executive Officer

Occupational Health & Safety Authority