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 the Post:

Related Posts