Maltese social partners oppose abolition of working time Directive opt-out

Virtually all the Maltese social partners agree that the abolition of the opt-out from the EU working time Directive's 48-hour limit on average weekly working hours, as proposed by the European Parliament in May 2005, would be harmful to the national economy. While acknowledging the importance of maintaining a better work-life balance, the government, trade unions and employers’ associations fear that the proposed amendment might lead to less business competitiveness and lower standards of living.

Malta is one of the few EU Member States that have taken up the option laid down in EU Directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (originally adopted in 1993 and now consolidated in Directive 2003/88/EC), of not applying Article 6 of the Directive - which specifies a maximum average working week (including overtime) of 48 hours - if an individual worker consents to this (ie the 'opt-out'). In September 2004, the European Commission proposed a draft Directive to revise the working time Directive (EU0410205F), which included revision of the 'opt-out' provision and reached the stage of a first reading in the European Parliament (EP) in May 2005 (EU0505205F). The Maltese social partners have expressed their disagreement with the EP's vote in favour of repealing the opt-out clause three years after the entry into force of the revised Directive. Maltese trade unions, employers and main political parties believe that the opt-out clause should be retained in the light of the country’s particular socio-economic circumstances. In general, the Maltese social partners agree with the reduction of working hours and do not question the intrinsic benefits of the working time Directive and the rationale behind the opt-out clause. However, while reiterating that it is in the interest of all to safeguard workers’ health, they believe that Malta has valid reasons to maintain flexibility in working hours.

Unions’ perspective

The General Workers Union (GWU), Malta’s largest trade union, want to retain the opt-out clause. Within the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), GWU has argued in favour of enabling workers to work up to 65 hours per week, in order to enable Maltese workers to increase their wages and permit a better standard of living. The secretary general of GWU maintains that the maximum amount of weekly working hours should be subject to collective bargaining and embedded within the parameters of collective agreements to avoid any abuses by employers. He states that it should be an inherent duty of any trade union, not merely GWU, to negotiate the best possible arrangement on behalf of the workers they represent, while bearing in mind that every agreement negotiated with employers has to be approved by workers before it is signed.

The Confederation of Malta Trade Unions (CMTU), the umbrella organisation embracing three large unions (MT0404102F) - the Union of United Workers (Union Haddiema Maghqudin, UHM), Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) and Malta Union of Bank Employees (MUBE) - together with seven smaller unions, has also expressed its disapproval of the EP’s proposed revisions to the working time Directive. CMTU acknowledges the good intentions that prompted the proposed changes - namely, that they broaden opportunities for better training, offer a harmonious balance between work and family lives, protect workers from health and safety risks associated with fatigue and eliminate the legal abuse of the opt-out clause. However, the confederation asserts that, considering the relatively low Maltese standard of living, the removal of the opt-out clause would be detrimental to workers’ economic situation. It has therefore taken a stand in favour of retaining the opt-out clause where overtime is concerned.

GWU and CMTU differ on the implementation of the opt-out clause. GWU states that working time is to be negotiated by the unions and conditions are to be stipulated within the framework of collective agreements in order to avoid abuses such as employees being forced to accept overtime as a precondition of their employment. On the other hand, CMTU believes that the employee, as an individual, should have the right to opt out of the Directive's provisions in this area and use such clauses at his or her own discretion without any trade union intervention. However, employers should make sure that workers who opt to work longer hours are protected and that they do not incur any serious risks to their health and safety.

Employers’ views

The Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises (GRTU) (MT0310101F) also expressed its disappointment about the EP's proposed repeal of the opt-out clause. GRTU stressed its view that the change will affect Maltese entrepreneurs negatively. Many of the firms operating in the Maltese labour market are small businesses. The financial restraints inherent in small size do not enable the owners of these enterprises to hire extra labour in order to remain competitive. According to GRTU, the enterprises that require workers to exceed 48 hours a week will not be able to reach their targets with the imposition of this working time limit. Indeed, the removal of the opt-out clause will make small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) incur a financial burden that they can ill afford in this highly competitive liberalised market, says GRTU.

On similar lines, the Malta Employers’ Association (MEA) together with the Malta Business Bureau (MBB) - which represents the Federation of Industries (FOI), the Malta Chamber of Commerce (MCC) and the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) - expressed their concern about the EP’s vote to do away with the opt-out clause. MEA maintained that, as a result of this move, major companies will be negatively affected and argued that the EP should keep in perspective the effects of global competition on job creation in Europe. Additionally, it stated that: 'European enterprise is in dire need of a level playing field with the other global competitors if the goals of the Lisbon agenda are to be achieved.' MEA believes that this proposed reduction in working time may not be beneficial to workers as they may resort to working part time with other companies to make up for their loss of income. This will defeat the objectives of the working time Directive and both employers and employees will be worse off.

MBB claimed that the removal of the opt-out clause, which by and large allows Maltese workers and businesses the flexibility to adapt their working hours according to need, would negatively affect Malta’s competitiveness and make it difficult to reach the targets set out in the country's National Action Plan for employment.

Commentary

The issue of the working time Directive is a rare occasion where virtually all Maltese social partners share the same views and have presented a common front. However, the abolition of the opt-out clause might not exert such a negative impact on the Maltese economy. Statistics reveal that, on average, Maltese workers declare that they work considerably less than the stipulated 48 hours per week. Besides, Maltese workers who exceed the 48-hour limit often do so in through their part-time job, something that would not be affected by the proposed amendments to the working time Directive. (Manwel Debono and Charles Tabone, Malta Workers' Participation Development Centre)