|
Are unions unnecessary when it comes to individual contract employees?
Definite period contacts are an important aspect of today’s work organisation for various reasons. In areas where work tends to be of a seasonal nature, such as tourism, agriculture and in some  manufacturing areas, demand for products and services is not constant throughout the year, and therefore employers can plan for cyclical variations in production through seasonal and contractual work.
Definite period contracts are also frequently used in professional services. Projects requiring specialised services, for example construction, may engage specialists for a definite time period until the completion of the project. It is becoming a frequent practice that consultants prefer to be employed on a project basis, and even in emerging sectors, such as information technology, qualified personnel would offer their services for a specified timeframe.
Definite period contacts offer advantages to both employers and employees. Both are bound to offer their services for the time period that is specified, and, in this respect, the employee has a guarantee of employment while the employer is assured of the provision of the services required for the duration of the agreement. Professionals tend to benefit from premium working conditions when they are engaged for a definite period, and would tend to prefer such contracts to build and diversify their careers. Young people frequently accept work on a definite period basis as a means to gain experience which enables them to find more stable employment.
Temporary work agencies use definite period contracts to enable companies to implement family friendly policies (e.g. parental leave) at their work place. The main concern with definite period contracts lies in cases where individuals are employed for a definite period, which is followed by subsequent contracts that are also definite. Employees may feel that this reduces their jobs security since they can be terminated once the contract expires and a new one is not issued. Maltese law today stipulates that an employee may only be retained on a definite period contract for a period of four years, following which, if the employee is retained in employment, he/she will automatically be considered to be on an indefinite contract.
Therefore the legislative framework offers adequate protection against possible exploitation. There have been cases, prior to the current legislation, where employees have been retained on definite period contracts for decades (incidentally, the civil service is still exempted from the four year limit).
Unions have done their part to protect the rights of definite period employees, both nationally and at European level. Employees on definite period contracts tend to be less likely to join trade unions, even though the law assigns them the same rights of freedom of association as other employees. This is largely because they tend to work independently and job security may not be an issue for them. As long as there are legal safeguards against abuse of the definite period contract, there is no question that such work arrangements work in favour of generating more productive employment, and are an integral part of the concept of flexicurity, that the EU is constantly promoting in the interest of both the employers and employees.
Joseph Farrugia is director general of the Malta Employers’ Association
When talking about employment on contract one cannot generalise because there are different forms of contracts even though by this we usually understand ‘individual contract’. However, apart from this  contract there are also other ‘term contracts’ amongst which are those known as ‘task contract’, where an employee is asked to do a particular job and the employment is terminated as soon as the job is done. There are other job contracts where instead of full-time employment one is employed for a determined period of time after which employment is renewed upon termination.
Even though the General Workers’ Union prefers that individual contracts are not done, there were instances where it discussed these kind of jobs with the employers. The union did this in cases where full-time employees where presented with conditions of individual contracts. Workers who are offered jobs or are asked to switch to an individual contract are usually the ‘key employees’ which the employer does not want to lose and so they are offered much better conditions and benefits than the rest of the other workers. These ‘individual contract’ employees are sometimes subtly lured either to leave their union or not join any at all. Moreover, there were cases where workers who had been offered an individual contract were bound not to join a union.
It is exactly this concept that the GWU disagrees with, primarily because individually contracted workers are not regulated by the collective agreement and secondly because these type of contracts lead to lack of solidarity and the division of the workers on their place of employment. Not to mention the dissemination of a sense of selfishness amongst the workers. Why? Because it can turn out that an individual contract discriminates between workers by allowing extra benefits for some against the rest who hold an inferior position. Once a worker has good or better conditions than the rest of his fellow workers, it is only logical that that particular individual will seek to defend his personal interests. This allows for fertile ground where selfishness can be sown.
Therefore, when and wherever this occurs the concept of collectivity and solidarity is undermined. The GWU cannot be in favour of this and this is why it had several discussions about these sort of employments. Even though as a union we cannot pressure workers as to the kind of employment they seek, it is our duty to inform workers to assure themselves that by their terms of contract they don’t isolate themselves from the rest of the workforce.
With regards to jobs on renewable contracts (temporary contracts) the GWU is working hard so that at least the employers recognise the long years of service (loyalty) to the employing company. It is according to this principle that lately the court presided by Judge Philip Sciberras accepted GWU’s argument and confirmed this principle. This was not only a triumph for GWU but a victory for all the workers employed on this type of contract.
Tony Zarb is secretary-general of the General Workers Union
|
