Industrial action due to restructuring averted at Maltacom

The General Workers’ Union and the Union of United Workers have expressed their concerns about the current restructuring process underway at the Maltacom telecommunications group. Both unions hinted at resorting to industrial action, based on their claims that employees at the company were not being treated properly and sufficiently rewarded for their past work. However, industrial unrest was averted shortly after management explained its plans and intentions during a scheduled conciliation meeting.

Background to restructuring

Maltacom Group Plc is the leading provider of telecommunications and related services in Malta. The company is currently undergoing restructuring processes aimed at diversifying its services, for the provision of fixed line, mobile, broadband internet and television services. This has necessitated a new organisational structure and thus the redeployment of workers.

Position of trade unions

The Union of United Workers (Union Haddiema Maghqudin, UHM) has been critical of the emerging restructuring activities at the Maltacom Group. The main reason behind the union’s disapproval is its belief that the restructuring process has not been sufficiently appreciative of the employees, failing to reward them for their dedication to the company over the years. The company’s management had informed the workforce within the two sections of Maltacom that were undergoing restructuring –the network operations centre and the commercial section – that the number of employees in these sections was being reduced. Employees in these two sections were instructed to reapply for their current jobs and were asked to prove their capabilities in jobs that they had been doing for many years. Moreover, they were asked to sit a test and to undergo a six-month probation period. After these proposals were made public, UHM requested an urgent meeting with the company’s management to discuss the situation.

The General Workers’ Union (GWU) adopted the same position as UHM, declaring the restructuring procedures at Maltacom to be unacceptable. During a press conference held in front of Maltacom’s offices, the GWU Secretary General, Tony Zarb, confirmed that the union did not approve of the company’s new practices. As a result, GWU registered an industrial dispute with Maltacom over its new restructuring measures, declaring that it would issue directives to its members to take industrial action if no positive response was received. The Secretary of the GWU’s Technology, Electronics and Communications Section, Andrew Mizzi, pointed out that the procedures were very different from those outlined to the union during a meeting held between Maltacom’s human resource and administration departments and GWU.

Management’s response

Management at Maltacom stated that, while its restructuring activities would not lead to redundancies, some workers may have to be redeployed. The group’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), David Kay, reassured the trade unions that the company had no intention of cutting jobs or issuing redundancies. Mr Kay added that the company aimed to fill newly created posts with existing employees, provided that they held the basic required skills and attitudes, which could be further developed. Maltacom’s aim was to implement a fair process whereby employees could apply for the positions which they felt most competent to fill. The idea behind the competency tests was to assess the candidates’ suitability for certain roles.

Agreement reached

Industrial unrest at Maltacom was soon averted. Top officials from Maltacom contacted GWU representatives to organise a meeting aimed at clarifying a number of issues and at explaining the current situation, while enabling the two parties to agree that the restructuring was in the interest of all stakeholders. An agreement was subsequently reached, stipulating how the restructuring process would be implemented within the context of the current collective agreement between the trade union and the Maltacom group. GWU expressed its satisfaction that no jobs would be lost and that salaries and benefits would not be adversely affected.

Christine Farrugia and Manwel Debono, Centre for Labour Studies