Union takes industrial action against car importers

In May 2006, the General Workers Union of Malta issued a notice of industrial action against 10 leading importers of new cars, over their failure to renew the collective agreement covering the sector. After negotiations ended in deadlock, the union gave the go-ahead for minor industrial action within these companies. In response, car importers filed a judicial complaint against the alleged illegal action of the union.

On 17 May 2006, after a breakdown in negotiations, the General Workers Union (GWU) resorted to industrial action against 10 leading importers of new cars over their failure to renew the sectoral collective agreement. The 10 companies concerned are: Kinds Auto Sales, Micheal Attard Ltd, Gasan Enterprises Ltd, UCIMCO Ltd, Muscat Motors Ltd, Continental Cars Ltd, Industrial Motors Ltd, Mizzi Automotive Services Ltd, International Automobiles Ltd and Mizzi Organisation Automotive Division. Workers in this sector are members of GWU and are organised under the technology and communications section of the union; its director for industrial and employment relations was also informed about the action.

Sectoral collective agreement

Generally, collective bargaining in the private sector is carried out at company level in Malta. Car importers are the exception to the rule, as they have one collective agreement signed at sectoral level. According to the GWU section secretary, the sectoral agreement is useful to employers, particularly in relation to wages, as it creates a level playing field. The elimination of wage competition, in turn, gives stability to the car retail sector, as employers tend to refrain from poaching employees from each other by offering them better pay.

The car importer’s collective agreement expired in December 2004 and in recent months, GWU has been insisting on a revision and renewal of the agreement. However, the two parties failed to reach an agreement in their negotiations. Subsequently, GWU informed the car importers in a letter that if they persisted with their current behaviour, the union would be forced to resort to industrial action.

Proceedings of industrial action

Since the warning was not heeded, GWU took industrial action on 17 May, after a meeting scheduled between the union and the car importers was postponed by the employers. The car importers justified this delay by stating that the meeting had to be postponed, as not all members of the Association of Car Importers Malta (ACIM) were able to attend on the fixed date. However, the union seemed unwilling to put up with any further delays and issued a number of directives to its members. These directives instructed union members to observe a ‘go slow’ to work rule, and not to offer customer assistance over the phone or by any other means of communication. The section secretary of GWU informed members that the union was prepared to intensify its actions if no positive steps were taken by the employers. GWU deemed this industrial action a success, as directives were followed by all union members.

Conversely, the car importers described such industrial action as unwarranted, as they claimed they were not informed 24 hours prior to the industrial action, as stipulated in the expired collective agreement. The union informed car importers of its intentions to take industrial action in a letter dated 16 May; subsequently, industrial action commenced on the morning of 17 May. In a statement to the media, the car importers declared that this partial industrial action was resulting in financial losses. As a result, eight members of ACIM filed a judicial complaint against GWU, claiming that the industrial action was illegal and abusive.

Commentary

Since this dispute involved collective bargaining at sectoral level, it should not be viewed merely as a sporadic breakdown in industrial relations. Both the union and employer sides seemed to be engaged in tactical conflict. As the cautionary note of the union was ignored by the employers, the union had to follow through on its words with actions. It should be noted that not all employers signed the complaint filed against the union. Whether this implies a division among the car importers is not entirely clear. Nonetheless, given the apparent uncompromising mood of the main actors involved in this dispute, conciliators may face a difficult task in trying to reach an amicable settlement.

Manwel Debono, Centre for Labour Studies