A ‘hospital’ for workers who hurt

Mario Schembri Wismayer speaks with Manwel Micallef, the new Deputy Secretary General of the General Workers' Union replacing the charismatic former deputy secretary general Mario Cutajar

It does not take much to start a conversation with Manwel Micallef the newly appointed deputy secretary general of the General Workers’ Union. I ask Mr Micallef what his profession is. "Well, now I’m a trade unionist," he says pausing for a minute before listing the varied jobs he has been in and out of. "Before that I worked as a producer with PBS and prior to that I was involved in insurance. I also did a stint at Shipbuilding where I finished up working as the Company Secretary responsible for Administration and Human Resources. In 1999 I was appointed sectional secretary for Ports and Transport. Then as from this August I became the Deputy Secretary General, responsible for administration."

Mr Micallef expounds. "I have been involved in trade unionism for quite some time now. I have been an official from 1999, but I started way before that as a shop steward with Mediterranean Insurance Brokers Ltd."

I ask Mr Micallef how he got involved in politics. "Many years ago I became a member of the Socialist Youth and I moved on from there. Before that I was a member of the Catholic Action, which is not political at all."

His first experience of trade unionism also harks back a number of years. "I used to work in the field of insurance. My colleagues felt that it was time to join a union and they asked me to be their spokesman. So I approached and negotiated with the union on our behalf."

Mr Micallef clarifies his position within the GWU. "I am still Secretary of Ports and Transport sector, for now. After Mr Cutajar resigned from his post, there was a certain amount of pressure from the other sectional secretaries for me to assume the position of deputy general secretary. I felt that I could give a positive contribution. So I consulted with all the other sectional secretaries and I was nominated for the post. The nomination was not contested and eventually my appointment was approved by the National Council."

Talk turns to union membership. What is Mr Micallef's opinion about those who for some reason or other refuse to join a union?

"I feel disappointment for such people. But in reality, where there are unions, everybody benefits, even those who choose to opt out. It is a fact that where there are no unions, employers still look at patterns set up elsewhere by unions to regulate their own interactions with their employees. In a few, very rare cases, we come across employers who still regard unions as a threat and this leads to them discouraging employees from signing up. Other employers and employees may still have not understood what unions are all about. That is why it is important for unions to disseminate information about what they do. That is also why, in my opinion, it is vital that unions should be one of the main key players, operating from the top of society. In this regard unions themselves might be partly responsible for a certain lack of membership."

What would the condition of workers be without unions? "It would be a disaster; the law of the jungle would prevail and exploitation would be rampant," Mr Micallef remarks. I point out that there is this impression that unions tend to ask for more from employers, even when there isn't enough to warrant increases. Perhaps this is caused by incessant demands by union members. He is unfazed by the argument. "As you said, this is just an impression. Unions start by sitting round a table with the employers. A company knows what its limits are. If the company can't afford to pay higher wages, either because of lean times, or a rough patch, or even because of some long-term business plan which might be putting a strain on the company in the present, but which is designed to yield benefits in the long-term, the union would back down. Of course the reasons given would have to be verified. If it finds that the company is trying to play silly games, then we press on for the demands we think are reasonable."

I ask what happens if it's just a case of interpreting one situation from two different angles, or if a question of priorities arises. "If there is a plan, it is respected, but if, for example, it's a question of cost-cutting exercises and we see that labour costs, as very often happens, are the first to become the casualties, then it is a very different matter." I ask why is it that if all the unions have the workers' interests at heart, they sometimes fight so harshly among themselves? "Let's take the case of the MIA, as an example. At the end of the day the two unions involved in the quarrel sat down and ironed out their differences. Trouble can arise when there is joint recognition. Joint recognition is not very good because the rights and interest of the workers are not taken care of as effectively as when there is one union negotiating with an employer. One union can establish a better rapport and get to understand an employer better. Take the question of flexibility as an example. One union could understand flexibility to mean one thing, such as a positive outlook, within defined working duties, while for others flexibility might mean doing whatever is asked of you, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with your work profile. Having said that, competition, like in every other field is good, however it is an inalienable fact that the GWU is the country's largest and this has to be recognised. Co-operation between the GWU and other unions might not happen because some unions may be afraid of being swallowed up by the GWU."

Does Mr Micallef think that the bad note on which Mintoff ended with Labour Party might have also had a negative spill-over on the General Workers' Union? "The Labour Party and the GWU are two distinct entities. We have a number of members who are Nationalist Party supporters. Many people forget this. The GWU is like a hospital for workers who hurt; whatever their political creed. We are here to solve the hurt of workers. The whole point of the Union is to be there for them. To answer your question more directly; no, what happened to the Labour party did not hurt the union." I ask what percentage of workers are members of a union. "Around sixty per cent. The percentage is far from optimal and the saturation should be higher; I don't believe it has peaked, yet. However this figure needs to be investigated further."

Mr Micallef explains that the union carries out its own research to constantly monitor trends and liase with international and national bodies.

I ask how Mr Micallef feels about the fact that in spite of everything unions in Malta seem to be so attached to one party or another and consequently, so polarised. "This fact works against trade unionism. Unions should be seen to be distinct, and should conduct their affairs so that they are not automatically linked with other entities. If historically both the Labour Party and the GWU are leftist, or have leftist origins, then that is going to cause some unavoidable affinity, but this should not be allowed to dominate the situation. One thing that I would like to add is that by criticising the GWU about being Labour, the Nationalist Party is helping to polarise the situation. The priorities of a union are different from those of a political party and as a union we are all out for furthering the rights and conditions of the workers, irrespective of who is running the country at the time. The conditions under which workers operate cannot be separated from the laws of the land; the important thing is to find a balance."

The reports about the EU commissioned by the GWU generally speak in favour of membership for the workers' interests, yet the GWU is against. Why?

"Some of the reports found in favour, but definitely not all. The union took the position after a General Assembly, where it was decided that under the present circumstances it is not in the interest of the Maltese worker to join the EU. The GWU commissioned a report to examine all the reports and analyse them. It also conducted a survey among its members on this issue. The conclusion reached after consulting both the reports and the survey was that while there would be some definite advantages reaped by joining the EU, these would be outweighed by the disadvantages. I must emphasise that a free hand was given to those who were asked to prepare both the first reports and the final one." Sticking with this point, I ask whether the GWU's stand on the EU was influenced at all by that which the Labour Party adopted. "No. It is an independent decision. The irony is that since the GWU and Labour came to a similar conclusion, we were criticised that we were following in the steps of the Labour Party. The fact of the matter is that we had the guts to come to our own independent conclusion and not to say 'yes' and so appear sweet in the eyes of the government. No criticism was levelled at those who found in favour of joining the EU, alongside the Nationalist Party."

The union has been in the spotlight lately in sections of the press for what is deemed to be faction infighting. I wonder how the union handles dissent.
"All discussions are open and dissent is welcome. Debate is an ongoing process in here and the feedback that this generates is essential to the process of reaching policy decisions. The GWU is a very democratic entity and all decisions are taken on the basis of a majority, which everybody respects. Even when it comes to different departments and sections all views are examined and reacted against by the committees who sometimes take the roles of devil's advocates in order to really sift the suggestions and views that are aired about a particular subject. Once a decision is taken, then it is respected by everyone and becomes the official view that the union has on that issue."

Conversation shifts to the Employment Relations Act and the Industrial Relations Act. "Both are still being analysed. Some clauses are still being scrutinised. As a union we are particularly satisfied that the clause relating to essential services was basically adopted word for word from our proposal. We are still monitoring the situation since there are other issues which are not yet tackled in the discussions at committee stage in parliament. For instance the right for public sector employees to appear in front of the Industrial Tribunal". I ask if these two new laws will help foster a new relationship between the social partners. "Naturally. The law is designed to improve things and this should therefore have a positive effect. Social partners will be able to interact more effectively through the forum of the MCESD."

The subject of port reforms comes up. I ask for Mr Micallef's position about the effective monopoly the GWU's company has when it comes to handling cargo in the Grand Harbour. "This is a private company owned by the GWU. It functions as a contractor for the Malta Maritime Authority and it is responsible for cargo handling in the Grand Harbour. I feel that it should remain, but assume a different function. It could become the terminal operator of Grand Harbour. If the costs are seen as being too high, it is not the Cargo Handling Company’s fault. It should be known that the tariffs are applied as stipulated by the law; they are regulated. Port charges are grumbled about, but the rest of the transportation process is not commented upon and there is no control over it. I feel that the MMA should become simply a regulator and the Lm100,000 annual fees paid by Cargo Handling to MMA should be retrenched into making the company more efficient and therefore cheaper."

We talk of less weighty pursuits. "My hobbies include reading biographies, but unfortunately I don't have much time to indulge in reading for leisure these days. I also love the theatre, football - I used to be a referee until I had to stop this activity because of other commitments. My pet hate is hypocrisy, especially when someone comes to me for help and paints one picture when the reality of the situation would be totally different."