With reference to the front page article under the heading “GWU’s ‘secret’ ballot (TMIS, 12 April), the GWU would like to make some clarifications as the said report is grossly misleading.

The photo carried with the article does not substantiate what was stated in the article, which stated the following “A port worker is shown about to vote in the street, as he was not allowed to go anywhere to mark his vote”. The truth about the photo in question is that that worker is being handed his voting document and therefore not filling in his vote in front of the lawyers appointed to oversee the voting process. Moreover, the GWU had written to both the Malta Freeport and the Malta Maritime Authority (MMA) requesting facilities inside the premises. Unfortunately, this request was refused by both entities. (We have documentation to prove this).

We quote ad litteram from the report by Buttigieg & Refalo Advocates and signed by Prof. Ian Refalo which states the following “This office was tasked with the following: (a) ascertaining the identity of each individual voter; (b) ensuring that the votes are cast freely and (c) tallying the votes cast”. This amply proves that the voting process was free, secret and democratic.

The GWU had requested the MMA, the Malta Freeport Terminals, the Malta Dockers Union and the Director of Employment and Industrial Relations to send representatives to be present during the whole process, but none of them accepted the invitation. This further demonstrates the professional and ethical approach adopted by the GWU.

The above clearly contradicts your report that the ballot was not secret at all. The process conducted by Buttigieg & Refalo Advocates is, by far, more superior and democratic than the verification process conducted by the Director of Employment and Industrial Relations. Furthermore, the process conducted by Buttigieg & Refalo Advocates was carried out according to international standards and as recommended by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Finally, it would have been appropriate on your part to ask for our comments before going to print. As sufficiently demonstrated above, the story carried in your newspaper is purely fictional and was not substantiated with facts.

Charles Vella

Media and Information Executive

GWU