.png)
.png)
MCCAA staff return to work at Mizzi House
General Workers Union hopes relations with MCCAA management improve.
23 August 2013, 12:00am
Staff Reporter
Staff Reporter
1 min read
Malta Competition and Consumers Affairs Authority employees returned to work after the General Workers Union confirmed that all risks from an adjacent asbestos roof had been eliminated.
The authority had in fact ordered the removal of the roof, adjacent to Mizzi House.
The GWU had asked the authority to provide it with a copy of the works report before workers returned to the premises. While the works were being carried out, MCCAA staff was working from home.
However, the union said, the management asked the workers to return to work at Mizzi House without having first passed on the report to the union.
"Moreover, the management failed to hold any discussions with the union. We had no other option but to order an industrial action and told the employees to continue working from home," the GWU said in statement.
It said "MCCAA's procrastination to discuss the report with the GWU was unacceptable", even though it resulted that the workers could safely return to work.
The report was subsequently sent to the union and discussed the following morning with the management. The directive was then withdrawn and the workers returned to Mizzi House.
"We hope that discussions with MCCAA improve. With better planning and open dialogue, work relations can be more positive," the GWU said.
Joseph MELI •
As a MCCAA senior scientist JP FAVA would be aware of the dangers of asbestos and working under a roof fabricated from such a material .He claims that since 2011 when the MCCAA was established the GWU "did nothing concrete (is that an attempt at a pun?)in order to remove the asbestos roof" -was it their job to do so or for scientists such as himself to lobby his employers to do something "concrete" to remedy such a dangerous workplace working condition-in fact what did he do .....just carry on working there regardless?This is not about Union action or inaction but is about those responsible (such as the OHSA and the correspondent himself)doing something tangible to remedy the situation and not wait two (2) whole years plus before this was eventually accomplished.
Joseph MELI •
When was this work carried out?As the MCCAA had informed the pubic in a press release that the head office would be closed from 12th-19th Aug,(both days inclusive) for "staff training " so which is it? Perhaps the "senior scientist " may be a position to shed some light on this?
•
I am a senior scientist employed with the MCCAA. The procedure by which the asbestos roof adjacent to the MCCA premises was removed was approved by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, and the works report mentioned above is an extra action the MCCAA management decided to do in order to give more assurance to its employees. Hence, the GWU had no grounds for an industrial action, since the measures taken by the contractor who removed the roof were enough to safeguard the safety of third parties, including MCCAA employees. The GWU were totally aware of this since they were directly informed by the OHSA. However, when the abovementioned works report was ready (at 11.30pm wed 21st August), MCCAA management dissiminated it to its employees.
With regard to procrastination, I would like to remind the GWU that since the establishment of the MCCAA back in 2011, the union did nothing concrete in order to remove the asbestos roof...that is procrastination.
Also, with regard to the industrial action, hardly 9% of the MCCAA adhered to it, indeed it was revoked by 9.00am of the same day
