Author: SME Chamber

All of us from the civil society front – employers'
associations, trade unions and
NGOs representing civil society representative in general know now how stupid
and irresponsible it was for Parliament to vote out the Budget for 2013. No one
gained anything except the political fanatics and people with an axe to grind.

The rest of us suffered unnecessarily as practically
most projects and schemes have been squeezed out due to lack of funds. The
Finance Ministry has been put in an extremely tight corner. All those who know anything
about Budgeting know that most public expense goes on programmes and
initiatives. These are the Government projects financed directly or partly
through EU Funding that mostly effect enterprise and civil society. No one in
his right senses plans to make all these groups suffer. But that's what
actually happens when there is no Budget approval. All Parliaments know this.
They all pass Budgets even if diluted to non-controversial issues. But
Budgets are approved. Even more so if an election is due as this implys a
relatively long period of no action. Experienced and loyal politicians do not
permit civil society to pay the price for politicians bickering.

Now we are all in the doldrums. Unnecessarily we await
the new Government, the opening of a new Parliament and the commencement of
Budget procedures all over again. It may be the end of many by the time the
exchequer is re-opened. This was one sheer irresponsible act that the country
could have done without.

Hopefully politicians will learn from this experience
and never again play with the livelihood of people and the good of the country
for silly political gain.

Once again the General Workers Union newspaper
l-Orizzont in another of its endless tirades against GRTU and its Director
General Vince Farrugia quoted the insinuation splattered by corruption
convicted ex-Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech who in a hopeless effort to defend
himself in Court against Corruption charges made insinuations against Green MT.

Nikki Dimech tried to give the impression, quoted endless times by the GWU
mouth piece, that Green MT was awarded the Sliema Locality Separated Waste
Collection Contract following pressure from Dr Paul Borg Olivier, P.N Secretary
General. The former
Mayor of Sliema Ms Joanna Gonzi has given full details and referred to Local
Council Meetings to explain exactly how the contract negotiations with Green MT
proceeded and how the Local Council approved the award of the contract to Green
MT. This Public Statement by the Sliema Local Council former Mayor Joanna Gonzi
is available for all too see (refer to Illum Newspaper of 2^nd
December 2012 Pg. 15). The Public statement of Joanna Gonzi clearly proves that
what Nikki Dimech said under oath is a lie.

Adding
to the statements made by Dr Joanna Gonzi, Green MT further states that it has
paid the contractor, Velljo Services from Mid August 2009 to end December 2009
and from February 01, 2010 to end October 2010, the sum of €47,850 for collection
of Recyclable Waste from Sliema. For the month of January 2010 the contractor
was paid from the Department of Local Government for this service.

So
yes the question now arises! Why did Sliema Local Council pay the sum of
€14,751 monthly for collection of recyclables in the same period to a
contractor when the collection was paid for by Green MT? Was there maybe any
other sort of collection which we are not aware off? We do not think so, but
the contractor did say on oath in Court that he was paying heavy commissions to
Nikki Dimech. This is the man Orrizzont and other are quoting to besmirch Green
Mt and its Chairman.

Green MT and GRTU go further
than that however. The truth is that Nikki Dimech used all means available to
him to create problems for Green MT. First he did whatever it was possible for
him to do to impose on Green MT the contractor he was happy with at Sliema.
Later in Court under oath the contractor explained why Nikki Dimech insisted on
retaining the same contractor and why he insisted that if Green MT was awarded
the contract they had to hold on to the same contractor. The reason was one:
Corruption. The contractor stated in Court that he paid commissions to Nikki
Dimech. Green MT knows that Nikki Dimech is corrupt. Not merely because of the
Court sentence against him but also because Nikki Dimech had demanded a payment
of €15,000 from Green MT for himself if he was to sign the agreement with Green
MT.

The demand was made to the Green MT CEO Joe Attard
who, after reporting this to the Chairman of Green MT Vince Farrugia, was
immediately directed to report directly to the then responsible Ministers for
Local Government Dr Chris Said and Minister George Pullicino, Minister responsible
for Waste Management who immediately arranged for Green MT CEO of Green MT to
meet the Deputy Police Commissioner Mr Joe Cachia.

Green MT offers an excellent service and has no reason
to seek pressure to win contracts. All Local Councils working with Green MT
know that Green MT is genuinely not for profit and Green MT feeds back any
positive balances to the community in improved services and direct assistance
to community services in the locality.

Putting
the facts right – How many times, GRTU asks, Labour Party spokesmen who
ought to know better, continue to spread false information about a case which
is still sub-judice in court and still awaiting judgment?

Besides the usual front page splatter of the GWU daily
paper l-Orizzont, we had this week also Labour Party ex-Head of Radio and
Television services Jason Micallef bluntly lying on TVAM and then again MLP
Deputy Leader Dr Toni Abela talking nonsense about the proceedings now in Court
against Sandro Chetcuti. This is a case where the Attorney  general after detailed police investigation
is taking criminal action.

Jason Micallef exercised a bad memory when he forgot
that Sandro Chetcuti's physical assault on Vince Farrugia happened almost a
year after the European Parliament Election. Like his Deputy Leader he also
insinuated that GRTU Director General Vince Farrugia and GRTU officials
inflated the issue. Dr Abela together with L-Orizzont also insinuated that GRTU
Director General put pressure on the Police and on the Attorney General to
cause a higher level of accusations against Sandro Chetcuti. What sheer
nonsense.

GRTU has not only denied all this as falsehood but Director
General Vince Farrugia is in Court against l-Orizzont, Malta Independent and
Malta Today for making these grave
and defamatory allegations. Any lawyer worth his salt, and Dr Toni Abela is an
experienced Court practitioner, knows that a claim made by the Defence in a
grievous bodily harm accusation by the Police in Court is not enough to lead to
a conclusion by the Presiding Judge. It has to be proved. The Defence in the
Sandro Chetcuti case did not give one single proof to confirm that Vince
Farrugia in any way whatsoever ever talked or tried to influence the Police
Commissioner, the Attorney General or the investigating Police Officers to
influence them in the execution of their duties. There is not, and there cannot
be, as it does not exist, any evidence that Vince Farrugia did anything to
influence proceedings. The prosecution and lawyers parte civile has still to
rebut in Court what the Defence of Sandro Chetcuti has presented in Court.
Decent Journalists and experienced politicians would have waited till Court
proceedings are completed before reaching premature conclusions. The
conclusions that matter are those of the Presiding Magistrate. 

What happened on March 11, 2010 at GRTU is abundantly
recorded. Witnesses stated on oath to the Police what actually happened within
an hour of the assault. The Police are professional enough to know when a case
is real. It is a great insult to the Police Commissioner and to his
professional team as well as to the Attorney General and his professional team
of lawyers for anyone to insinuate and to believe that they were influenced,
indeed ordered, by anyone, and an outsider for that, to cause what charges to
be made in Court in such a high profile case.

The evidence – real evidence – eye-witnesses on the
scene, police report, reports of paramedics on the scene, medical specialists
from Mater Dei and CT Scan on the victim plus forensic experts photographic
evidence – is all there in Court. Defence Lawyers tried to present their case
and did their best to seek media highlights. What matters in Court is
substantive concrete evidence and the evidence is abundantly clear that Sandro
Chetcuti on March 11, 2010 assaulted and grievously harmed and threatened the
life of Vince Farrugia.

What l-Orizzont, Dr Toni Abela and Jason Micallef now
say is sheer humbug. Serious observers await the Court decision on the case
itself and on the libel actions against all who blabbered.

The
principle of prohibition of discriminatory treatment on the basis of age mainly
emanates from Subsidiary Legislation 452.95, the Equal Treatment in Employment
Regulations (LN 461 of 2004). These regulations give effect to a number of
directives – Council Directives 76/207/EEC, 2000/78/EC, 2000/43/EC, 2002/73/EC
and 2006/54/EC and apply to all persons as regards both the public and private
sectors and including service with the Government in accordance with the
Extension of Applicability to Service with Government (Equal Treatment in
Employment) Regulations (SL 425.100).

The
Regulations put into effect the principle of equal treatment in relation to
employment by laying down minimum requirements to combat discriminatory
treatment on a number of grounds, which include age. An important point is that
the regulations apply to all persons in relation to conditions for access to
employment, including the advertising of opportunities for employment,
selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity
and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotions. It is
expressly stated that it shall be unlawful for a person to subject another
person to discriminatory treatment, whether directly or indirectly, on the
grounds of age. However, "any difference of treatment based on a characteristic
related to grounds of … age … shall not constitute discriminatory treatment
where by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities
concerned, or of the context in which they are carried out, such a
characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement
provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate"
(Regulation 4).

The
Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Cap 452), by virtue of which the
aforementioned regulations have been promulgated, tackles the issue of age in
relation to employment in article 36 (14) thereof. Indeed, the latter states
that the employer can terminate the employment of an employee when the employee
reaches pension age as defined in the Social Security Act. It is clear from the
wording that EIRA does not in any way preclude recruitment of persons of a
pension able age. EIRA is giving any employer the right to terminate an
employee's employment relationship upon the employee's reaching of the national
retirement age.

The
termination of the contracts of employment of retiring employees directly
benefits young workers by making it easier for them to find work, which is
otherwise difficult at a time of chronic unemployment. The rights of older
workers are adequately protected as most of them wish to stop working as soon
as they are able to retire, and the pension that they receive serves as a
replacement income once they lose their salary. The automatic termination of
employment contracts also has the advantage of not requiring employers to
dismiss employees on the ground that they are no longer capable of working,
which may be humiliating for those who have reached an advanced age.

The
European Court of Justice (ECJ) has delegated the application of age limits for
the recruitment of certain professionals, such as dentistry and fire fighting,
to the authority of the national courts, due to the health responsibility of
those professions. Directive 2000/781 prohibits discrimination on  grounds of age in the field of employment and
occupation. However, the directive does not preclude national measures which
are necessary for the protection of health. It also allows the national
legislature to provide, in certain cases, that a difference of treatment,
although based on age or a characteristic related to age, is not discrimination
and is not therefore prohibited. The ECJ noted that a difference of treatment
based on a characteristic related to age is thus permissible where, because of
the nature of an occupational activity or the context in which it is carried
out, that characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational
requirement. A difference of treatment on grounds of age may also be accepted
if it is necessary for the protection of health or if it is justified by a
legitimate aim, including employment policy, labour market and vocational
training objectives. In a nutshell, our law prohibits discrimination at the
very first stance of access to employment and selection criteria on the ground
that the applicant trying to access a particular employment is of a particular
age, including a pension able age. However as is stated in our implementing law
and also as ruled by the ECJ.

08:45 – 11:30 hrs at Malta
Enterprise, Gwardamangia Hill, Pieta – The
European Union's Eco-Innovation programme is addressed mainly to organisations
that have developed an environmental product, service, management practice or process
which has a proven track record yet is not fully marketed due to residual
risks. The Eco-innovation initiative is intended to overcome those barriers to
further market penetration and turn these products and processes into Europe's
future eco-innovation successes. Applications from SMEs are particularly
encouraged.

" Reforming the Internal
Market for Industrial Products " – In accordance with the European
Commission's Work Programme 2013 a public consultation has been released for
all industrial products, i.e. manufactured non-food products. It
will address the elimination of remaining trade barriers, in particular for
products with high-level growth potential, ensure more consistency in the
application of the legislation, and simplify its management and implementation.

The consultation is very broad and
gives us the opportunity to table old and new points again.

It is about mutual recognition, Key Enabling
Technologies (E.G Nano), Sustainable Products, Overlapping and Conflicting EU
legislation, Harmonisation, Expanding CE-Marking, Accreditation, Conformity,
and more.

DEADLINE:
WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL

The consultation can be
found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=IMIP&lang=en

The
Seminar will focus on:The
understanding  of  the scope and objectives of the EU Directive
2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions and its
transposition to Maltese law by LN277/2012.The legal rights, benefits and
limitations of this Directive for the Maltese business community in
business-to-business and business-to-government commercial transactions.

The
Maltese credit environment and the implementation of the Directive 2011/7/EU in
Malta.

Delegates
will be provided with Conference literature, Free Parking on first come first
served  basis and Networking light lunch.

Fees:
This seminar is sponsored by the European Commission Representation in Malta
and  there is no charge for participants.

Thursday
14th Februaury 2013    

 –    
13.30-17.00pm     –    

Grand
Hotel Excelsior, Floriana

You
are to send your interest on by not later than 12^th February 2013.
Instruction on how to register is available on www.macm.org.mt.

Malta Council for Science
and Technology is launching the 2013 National Research & Innovation
Programme. The scope of this Programme is applied research and knowledge
transfer between academia and industry, focussing on Environment & Energy
Resources, ICT, Added-value Manufacturing and Health and Biotechnology.

The MCST is currently
accepting proposals to the R&I 2013 Programme.

Information
sessions will be held on Thursday 14th February 2013 at 14.00 at the MCST, Villa Bighi,
Kalkara. Full details of the Programme
including rules for participation and application forms are available on the
MCST website:

http://www.mcst.gov.mt/national-funding/ri-programme/current-ri-programme

GRTU
has received confirmation that the European Commission has decided that Chinese
Manufacturers of lighters (gas fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint under EU
consolidated HS Code ex96131000) were bypassing anti-dumping regulations and
has therefore extended the already imposed dumping tax to cover imports also
from Vietnam.

The
objective of the already existing anti-dumping tax on Chinese originating
lighters, set up in 1991, was to restore the conditions for a fair and loyal
competition to allow European lighter producers to trade on equal terms with
their competitors and to give them the ability to maintain jobs. For 20 years,
this regulation has been difficult to enforce, many producers having multiplied
ways to circumvent it through false declarations, claiming especially that
their lighters were produced in Vietnam, making it a major country of
circumvention through false declaration of origin.