The Malta Employers’ Association (MEA) welcomes the ambitions behind the proposed legislative changes to the Health and Safety Act, which it considers positive. It believes that the measures contemplated in the Bill should drive health and safety higher up the agenda of employers, particularly where the business entails high risk to workers and other stakeholders. If correctly implemented, the new provisions in the Bill should help balance health and safety considerations with other commercial and compliance priorities in local companies, and elevate standards and professionalism in health and safety among the commercial community.
Nevertheless, the MEA believes that for these objectives to be attained, the Bill needs to provide full clarity to the business community. Companies have the right to know, in advance, which companies will be required to nominate a Health and Safety Reporting Officer (HSRO) and according to which criteria. Companies need to know the background, position, academic qualifications, and terms of reference such persons need to have before being given such nominations with such onerous responsibilities.
The MEA 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 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. Instead, it would merely transfer the administrative burden and financial cost of enforcement to companies by mandating the nomination of HSROs.
The MEA fully supports any well-executed plan to eradicate abuse while promoting proper engagement, risk-management procedures, adequate training, and investment in safety equipment to minimize injury and innocent loss of life. However, it does not expect this law to be used merely to increase burdens indiscriminately on companies with relatively lower risk, such as office work. Moreover, the MEA notes that the role of the HSRO is similar to that of a Compliance Officer, at the management level, who, though employed by a commercial undertaking, acts ‘independently’ of the employer and has direct access to the Authority. While this may appear straightforward on paper, it may become much more cumbersome to implement in practice, potentially resulting in limited overall success in addressing critical health and safety shortcomings and avoiding serious accidents and injuries.
The MEA has 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 minimizing occupational hazards and health and safety risks, the MEA continues to insist on employee disclosure clauses, which it notes are absent in the Bill. It continues to insist 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 contends that employees who get injured at work and are found to be under the influence of any psychoactive substance (whether decriminalized 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.
By commenting you are accepting our Comment Policy.