Employers ‘not convinced’ that new H&S bill will address known safety issues

The Malta Employers Association has issued a strong statement on new health and safety legislation that was passed unanimously in Parliament on Monday despite the Opposition’s claims that the bill is “rushed” and a “knee-jerk reaction” to the findings of the Jean Paul Sofia inquiry.

That inquiry, which looked into the culpability of different state entities in a building collapse that led to the death of Mr Sofia, who was 20 years old, laid much of the responsibility at the feet of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority – despite the authority having no legal obligations on the site in question.

The new rules seek to bring new clarity to what has been revealed to be a major grey area by introducing a new Health and Safety Reporting Officer (HSRO) that will be employed by firms but operate independently on their leadership – in a manner analogous to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) role introduced a few years back.

While the MEA welcomed “the ambition” behind the proposed legislative changes, it insisted on the need for “full clarity” to the business community, which it said “has a right to know, a priori, which companies are going to be in scope of nominating a HSRO and according to which criteria.”

It said that “companies need to know at the outset what background, position, academic qualifications and terms of reference such persons need to have before being given such nominations with such onerous responsibilities.”

The employers’ lobby stated that it is “not convinced” that the legislative changes on their own “can truly address the priority problem areas it is seeking to address unless the above points are made amply clear.”

It added that it believes that “unless this proposed legislation is implemented properly, consistently and in a targeted manner it would not serve to address risk and the avoidance of occupational hazards.

“On the contrary, it would merely serve to transfer the administrative burden and financial cost of enforcement to companies by mandating the nomination of HSROs on certain employers.”

The group was at pains to clarify that while it is “full-square behind any well-executed plan to eradicate abuse whilst inculcating proper engagement, risk-management procedures, adequate training and investment in safety equipment with a view to minimise injury and innocent loss of life,” on the other hand, it “does not expect this law to be used merely to increase burdens indiscriminately on companies which have relatively lower risk, such as office work” – echoing a major complaint of The Malta Chamber, which struck a similar tone in a reaction issued immediately after Monady’s vote.

It referenced the role of Compliance Officers (or MLROs), that, though employed by a commercial undertaking, acts ‘independently’ of the employer and has direct access to the relevant authority.

“While this may appear rather straightforward on paper, it may become much more cumbersome to implement in practice, potentially resulting in limited overall success in terms of clamping down on potentially critical H&S shortcomings and the avoidance of serious accidents and injuries.”

The MEA also raised concerns with respect to the reporting lines of the executive and the need for the CEO of the authority to operate with full political independence.

Finally, “to ensure full benefit in terms of minimising occupational hazards and H&S risks,” the MEA continued to insist on employee disclosure clauses which it noted are absent in the bill.

To this end, it said that employers have a right to know of any physical or mental impairment that their employees may have (whether visible or otherwise) and which may affect health and safety at work.

Furthermore, the MEA contended that employees who get injured at work and are found to be under the influence of any psychoactive substance (whether decriminalised or otherwise) will be deemed to have contributed to their own injury (or that of their co-workers or third-parties) and an employer who was fully compliant with health and safety regulations should be exonerated from any liability.