Category: Archive – 2013

GRTU welcomes US President Obama's
clear commitment to a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership. We count on both sides' responsibilities to advocate free trade
policy as an indispensable tool to promoting growth and welfare worldwide.

In
that respect, the EU should seek the closest possible economic integration and
regulatory cooperation with the US, while insisting on the need to not question
the overall priority attached to the conclusion of the multilateral WTO Doha
Round.
In times of economic weakness and
uncertainty, facilitating trade is key to promoting growth on both sides of the
Atlantic. Hence, it is absolutely essential to remove the remaining trade
barriers between the world's most important trade giants. GRTU also welcomes
the final report of the High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth that pleads
for an ambitious and comprehensive trade agreement between the European Union
and the United States.

In addition to some tariff-related
issues, the commerce sector is highly affected by regulatory barriers. Free
trade negotiations could provide an additional opportunity to enhance
consistency in customs clearance procedures between both regions, but also to
ensure consumer protection and environmental and quality standards between the
EU and US. Mutual recognition of the high standards already in place within
each region would encourage trade between the EU and US.

Statement
from US President Barack Obama, Council President Herman Van Rompuy and
Commission President José Manuel Barroso

"We, the
Leaders of the United States and the European Union, are pleased to announce
that, based on recommendations from the U.S.-EU High
Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth co-chaired by
United States Trade Representative Kirk and European Trade Commissioner De
Gucht, the United States and the European Union will each initiate the internal
procedures necessary to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership.

"The
transatlantic economic relationship is already the world's largest, accounting
for half of global economic output and nearly one trillion dollars in goods and
services trade, and supporting millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

"We are
committed to making this relationship an even stronger driver of our
prosperity. In that regard, we welcome the High Level Working Group's
recommendations on how we can expand further our transatlantic trade and
investment partnership, promoting greater growth and supporting more jobs.

"A
high-standard Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would advance
trade and investment liberalization and address regulatory and other non-tariff
barriers.

"Through
this negotiation, the United States and the European Union will have the
opportunity not only to expand trade and investment across the Atlantic, but
also to contribute to the development of global rules that can strengthen the
multilateral trading system."

The
Reference Group on "Hospitality and Tourism" formerly termed
"Accommodation and Food Service Activities", will review the specific
contents of Employment, Skills, Competences Occupations (ESCO) in their field
of economic activity. It covers NACE sections referring to accommodation, food
service and tourism.

Purpose
of their work is to update and validate the ESCO data so that it enables an
efficient matching between skills/competences, jobs and learning opportunities.
To this end, the group will review the occupations, as well as those
skills/competences and qualifications that are specific to the sector.

The
group aims to make a proposal for a complete revision of the sector within a
timeframe of two years.

Members
of the Reference Group acknowledged that the group is trans-European, balanced
and includes representatives of public and private stakeholders, policy makers
and key industry stakeholders.

Members
of the Reference Group can act as multipliers. Using their professional
networks they will be able to involve a much larger group of stakeholders. The
Malta Stakeholders include organization and institutional representatives from
the tourism and business sectors including the GRTU, MHRA and MTA. The
Reference Group expert for Malta is Julian Zarb, Director (Tourism).

The
members of the Reference Group unanimously elected Mr Julian Zarb as chairman
and Mr Geoff Carroll as vice-chairman.

"Don't be
afraid of criticism, President Draghi was right to come out strongly stating
that the European Central Bank (ECB) will do whatever needs to be done to save
the Euro" stated Vince Farrugia GRTU's Director General and EESC
Employers Representative.

He was addressing Mr Constâncio, Vice-President of the
European Central Bank, as one of the selected EESC Plenary speakers on behalf
of European Employers. "Unfortunately
for far too long a time the ECB stayed back and allowed the financial markets
to dictate, assuming wrongly that the financial institutions will shy away from
usurping speculative profits. This was a wrong strategy based on a defunct
theory that profit seekers left on their own will decide on what is best for
us. The ECB should have never been caught unaware to the money flows that
caused the background to the greatest financial and resulting economic crisis
of our times. It seems that the lesson has now been learnt and a more
aggressive ECB is emerging. Keep up the rhythm. Don't go back to the old ways.
Never be caught out again unaware" emphasized Vince Farrugia.

Mr Farrugia said that he expected ECB to monitor and
when needed influence what national central banks are doing and what the
financial institutions are doing. He emphasized to watch especially the
politicians at both local and national level and more especially in Brussels,
in the Council. There is time for politicians to act and legislate. But there
is time and an important phase for the technocrats to monitor, supervise,
decide and act. The ECB should act decisively to influence important decisions.

GRTU's EU desk has this week once again participated
at the EuroCommerce Social Affairs Committee (SAC) and the Social Dialogue
Committee (SDC) meeting which is held on a tripartite level between Employers
Organisations and EuroCommerce as their representative, Trade Unions and
UniEuropa Commerce as their representative and the European Commission.

At the SAC employer representatives exchanged views
and held discussions and the EuroCommerce secretariat provided an update of
activities. During this update an urgent and important issue was discussed
related to a report being prepared by EESC members related to Self-Employment.
It was stated that this working document has improved but there are still some
aspects that are considered problematic. Work will be carried out in this
regard including a position paper, voting recommendations and work within the
EESC.

During the SAC EuroCommerce also explained that an
Economic Study on Commerce will be conducted this year by EuroCommerce. This
initiative was taken following a number of important proposals concerning
commerce which would be needed in order to represent commerce with a stronger
position. The idea is to come up with figures and provide a good story for
commerce in relation to GDP, employment, investment, innovation, and more. The
result of this study will be disclosed at EuroCommerce's annual event.

Presentations were also delivered by the European
Association of Paritarian Institutions on the White Paper on Pensions and by
the European Banking Federation on their involvement in Social Dialogue. The
SAC closed with an update from all national representatives where the EU Desk
representing Malta also gave a national update where statistics were presented
stating that latest figures show that the unemployment level stood at 4.3% with
a total of 6,811 registered unemployed 78% of which were males and over 73%
being in the over 30 age group. The EU Desk also mentioned that on a national
level social partners have signed a declaration endorsing the Jobs+ report
which was presented by an employers organisation and we are also participating
as partners in an ESF funded project on Stress at Work. The meeting closed with
the Chair saying that due to several commitments he will be unable to continue
holding his position as chairman and that another chair will be replacing him.

The SDC was opened by the new European Commission
representative. An update was provided on the next Capacity Building Project in
which GRTU, being Malta one of the new Member States, will also be
participating. This project builds on a previous project called CABEO which
also focused on Capacity Building in Social Dialogue for employers
organisations. GRTU looks forward to the next project that will provide
valuable knowledge and tools with which the capacity of GRTU will be enhanced.

A presentation on the European Retail Action Plan was
delivered. This action plan mainly focuses on eliminating already identified
obstacles to the Single Market in the Retail Sector.  Presented also was the Youth Employment
Package which provides Member States with a number of solutions and initiatives
to alleviate the problem of youth employment, which in some Member States
stands very high. The Commission stated that nearly one in four young people on
the labour market cannot find a job, more than 30% of unemployed young people
were long-term unemployed and the EU youth unemployment rate was more than
twice as high as the general unemployment rate. Among the initiatives of the
Employment Package to tackle these problems are: Youth Guarantee scheme,
Increase the supply of high-quality traineeships and apprenticeships, Labour
mobility and Reforms in labour market regulation.

Finally an update was provided on the European Skills
Council for Commerce where it was stated that a small group of Member States
have already subscribed to this initiative and more concrete interest is
expected shortly. GRTU is currently in discussions on the setting up of a
national skills council for commerce. Meanwhile at EU level the website has
been launched.

It
was firstly pointed out that unless both Schemes Green Pak and Green MT operate
under the same obligations, this would be a detriment to members of one Scheme
as is the case today. Green MT pointed out that according to Green Pak's Annual
Report presented to MEPA by the same company/ cooperative, it outlined that its
members placed 16,583 tons of packaging waste on the market. Greenpak Coop
recovered 9,764 tons in the same period thus 58.8%.

This
clearly means that the 70% bench mark requirement for its producer members to
obtain 100% exemption was not reached. Green MT has as such requested the
Approving Body to take immediate action over this issue. We cannot have an
Authorized Scheme that does not reach the recovery obligations of its producer
members according to LN 84 of 2010 operating without any repercussions at all.
It is blunt fiscal evasion which needs to be corrected.

It
is no wonder that Green Pak do their best to poach Green Mt's largest members
by offering discounts as far as 35% to 40%. It is absurd. In the local media,
Green Pak Coop reported in December that its Patronage Scheme will provide to
its relatively small producer members, those who paid minimum fee, of less than
€150 will get a rebate of €554. And this because the Scheme performed extremely
well! We now await the Approving Body to take action. We want extended producer
responsibility to operate well, decently, fiscally correct and in compliance.
Anything less is not acceptable and we shall not be accomplices in what is
being done wrongly by others.

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.