Union boss says employers ‘fire pregnant women to avoid paying maternity leave’

Paul Pace, president of the FORUM confederation of trades unions, has dropped a bombshell, claiming that there are employers who sack pregnant employees so they would not have to pay maternity leave.

Dubbing the action as “undeniable”, Pace insisted that despite being bound by law to pay maternity leave to employees who are pregnant, employers resort to “any pretext to fire pregnant employees in an effort to avoid paying maternity leave.”

“Last year only 900 out of the 2,000 engaged in the private sector applied for maternity leave. The other women did not apply, presumably because they had their work terminated,” he said during the current affairs TVM programme Reporter.

Under Maltese law, a pregnant employee may start maternity leave four weeks before the expected date of birth, but Pace argued that employers “find an excuse to fire their pregnant employees before this four-week period starts.”

“The only way you can deny a woman maternity leave is by firing her. Employers are bound by law to pay for maternity leave, but they nevertheless find an excuse to sack a woman so she would no longer work. You cannot deny this,” Pace said.

Malta Employers’ Association president Arthur Muscat, another guest on Reporter, disputed Pace’s claims, saying they should not be making sweeping statements.

Muscat referred to recent controversial proposals by the MEA on sick leave, insisting that if an employee suffers self-inflicted injuries, the employee should not be eligible for sick leave.

The MEA’s proposals for the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, suggest among others that “self-inflicted ailments such as hangovers, commercial surgeries, sunburn, and sport-inflicted injuries” should not render an employee eligible for sick leave.

“If an employee is warned against doing dangerous sports or stunts, such as diving off Comino cliffs, and the employee nevertheless ignores such warnings, then he should not be paid for sick leave,” Muscat said.

The proposals however met strong objections from the GWU, which insisted that irrespective of an employee’s ailments, an employee should be eligible for sick leave. GWU secretary General Tony Zarb said that “any medical certificate issued by a doctor should count for sick leave.”

The majority of respondents to a MaltaToday survey insisted that employers should not be allowed to determine which ailments should qualify for sick leave. However, 33% of respondents felt that hangovers should not benefit from sick leave, and 20% did not feel that sports injuries should be included.

Dispelling the criticism, Muscat insisted that the MEA is against abuse, not against sick leave.

“Employers must check the records of the employees and their activities. If there is a trend emerging, and it is clear that there is abuse, we have to interfere because this is abuse and unfair both on the employee and on fellow workers,” he said.