Ports of Auckland shareholder asked for accountability over dispute decisions

The Maritime Union 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.

The Mari­time Uni­on 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.

 

Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Welcome to the Maritime Union

The Mari­time Uni­on of New Zea­l­and was formed in 2002 when the New Zea­l­and Water­front Work­ers’ Uni­on and the New Zea­l­and Sea­farers’ Uni­on joined togeth­er. We rep­res­ent water­front work­ers, sea­farers and related work­ers in New Zea­l­and.

Read More