Employers to sign agreement on much discussed disability quotas

The Malta Employers Association and the government will be signing a memorandum of understanding on a number of contentious issues surrounding the government’s decision to enforce a law to have 2% of SMEs’ workforces composed f people who have a disability.

The measure was immediately met with resistance from employers who voiced concerns about what classified as a disability, as well as the efficacy of such a measure in encouraging inclusiveness. 

Under the rule to be enforced, companies with over 20 workers who don’t fulfil the disability quota by 2017, will have to pay an annual €2,400 for every disabled person they should be employing, capped at €10,000. The law also stipulates that employers who do not reach the quota will have to pay a third of the fee for 2015, and half the fee in 2016. Funds generated through this initiative will go to the National Fund for Integration of People with a Disability.  

“We are currently finalising our drafts of the memorandum, and moving towards an imminent conclusion and ultimate signing of the agreement,” MEA director general Joe Farrugia told MaltaToday. 

Farrugia explained that the memorandum, a result of negotiations involving the MEA, the Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) and the Chamber of Commerce, would provide a way forward as it settles various contentious issues in the law. 

“We have always supported measures that support having more people with a disability in the workforce, but we think the aim of these measures should never be revenue collection,” Farrugia said, pointing out that there were already some 700 companies that conformed to the quota, and that none had shown real resistance to the law.

However, Farrugia pointed out that some companies might still opt for paying the fine rather than employing someone with a disability under the rule. 

One of the suggestions of the memorandum will be removing the fines for employers who did not meet the quota until 2015, and enforcing the fines starting from 2016 “to allow employers more time to satisfy the necessary criteria”, Farrugia said, explaining some of the details of the understanding. 

“Among the proposals of the document, is the creation of a clear definition of what classifies as a disability, as well as the establishment of a single register for people with a disability,” Farrugia said. 

He explained that having more than one register often resulted in confusion, with employers often being unaware whether their employees were registered for their disability or not. Earlier this year, the association had also made a suggestion to gain access to information (namely the identity) from ETC and KNPD about their employees who have a disability, in order to determine whether or not they satisfy quotas. 

However, under the current Employment and Training Corporation Act, drafted in 1990, employers are not permitted to know the identity of employees who are registered with the ETC or with the National Commission Persons with Disability (KNPD) as having a disability.

Farrugia explained that whether or not a person registers as having a disability with either authority, rightly, depends on the person in question, and that the new register should be run with the same principle.

“As a result of the optional nature of registering, however, if a person who clearly has a disability isn’t registered as such, employers might mistakenly think they fulfil the quota when they don’t,” he said, stressing that the association still felt it was important to have access to the identity of those registered.

“It is also in the interest of the employees themselves,” Farrugia said, adding that health and safety both of the disabled employees themselves and of other employees, could be better safeguarded. 

In a previous communication, Farrugia had explained that it would not suffice for employers to know the number of employees with a disability they had under their charge, because knowing their identity was ultimately “a source of proof”, just in case they were taken to court for not observing the quota.