Maritime Union of New Zealand calls for accountability from Ports of Auckland shareholder over dispute decisions.
15 August 2012
Maritime Union of New Zealand calls for accountability from Port of Auckland shareholder over dispute decisions
The Maritime Union of New Zealand says ACIL, the sole shareholder of the Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL), must shine a spotlight on the role played by port management and POAL Board of Directors in the current industrial dispute.
Maritime Union of New Zealand National President Garry Parsloe wrote to the Chair of Auckland City Investments Limited (ACIL) Simon Allen last week, along with the Mayor of Auckland and Chair of Auckland City's Accountability and Performance Committee Richard Northey, requesting greater accountability for the Port’s role in the dispute and an analysis of the costs of POAL’s misguided decisions to its shareholder.
ACIL's Statement of Intent made it responsible for "prudent governance and management of these investments", including Ports of Auckland Limited.
Mr Parsloe says that the dispute between the Maritime Union and POAL had not been resolved.
He says that there needed to be close scrutiny of the port management by ACIL to ensure any past and ongoing decisions and spending are in the best interests of Aucklanders.
"Breaches of POAL's legal obligations and the costs of the dispute mean ACIL should be involved in resolving matters in a constructive way as soon as possible."
Mr Parsloe says he believes the decision making processes around the dispute have not been open, and Auckland City councillors had not been given a full and frank information including a breakdown of the costs of POAL's actions in the dispute.
"ACIL need to analyse the cost of the loss of revenue, the extensive use of consultants, legal fees, paid advertising, redundancy payments, and any compensatory payments that have been made to contracting companies – these are just some of the figures that need to be out in the open and subject to some robust discussion, not hidden away under a cloak of secrecy."
In addition to these costs, there were a number of potential costs around penalties for privacy breaches, personal grievances and breaches of good faith in bargaining.