Mediation discussions cause concern

The Maritime union has expressed dismay today that after all the disruption at the Port of Auckland the Port has returned to bargaining with little change in its position regarding security of employment and a stated determination to continue contracting out once the collective is settled.

“No worker in their right mind will agree to a collective which retains the right of the employer to contract out after what we have been through and with a clear indication across the table from the Port that they continue to want to pursue the idea,” Garry Parsloe National President said

“The union in good faith continues to try to address the Ports key issues regarding rostering and utilisation and again today tabled a comprehensive new proposal. This included major changes to the way overtime is paid and a willingness to discuss a wide range of additional issues.

“We have been continually trying to second guess what this Port really needs to get this deal sorted. The only response we have ever got is that they want total flexibility in the workplace that overrides the workers family interests and that one way or another removes all employment security.

“The workers, customers and people of Auckland want this sorted. They want certainty that the dispute is over and ships and freight will run smoothly again. The Port came today completely unprepared with nothing much to offer except their entrenched position. The union has now agreed to meet again next Thursday and has urged the Port to have a complete rethink.”

MUNZ bargaining position 4 April 2012

On 12 January the MUNZ put a number of proposals on the table to amend the current collective employment agreement to increase labour utilisation and productivity. These ideas were expanded on at the bargaining of 2 March and have not been responded to by the Port Company. The union continues to propose these matters be discussed in the bargaining.

The union wants to use these proposals to determine how they address the utilisation issues raised by the port and believes additional solutions can be developed as part of that process that the union considers would result in increased utilisation but retain the fundamental employment security at the heart of this dispute.

There are a number of outstanding legal matters that the union is also interested in discussing as part of any settling.

Other issues

1. Contracting out provisions
2.
3.
The union concern relating to this matter has crystallised during this dispute.

It is clear including through various documents and statements that the Port continues to be committed to contracting out and has at various times considered that this might be better achieved within a settled collective agreement.

It is the union’s view that a collective agreement should be agreed that is fair and sustainable and secures a commitment to continued direct employment of workers covered by this agreement. In these circumstances any continued insistence by the Port to retain contracting provisions can only be seen as part of an undisclosed plan to contract once the agreement is settled.

It is not viable for the union, with such intransigence by the Port, to agree a collective that would open the door for contracting.

The union accepts there is a provision in the collective agreement related to contracting which has been included to meet requirements regarding transfers set out in the Employment Relations Act. It does not agree that the provision allows the Port to contract out, but in fact simply records the Ports obligations if contracting were to lawfully eventuate.

The unions preferred position is for a clear and blanket statement that contracting out will not be allowed for positions covered by this collective agreement. In the alternative the Union would be prepared to consider one of two compromise positions:

a. That contracting will be allowed subject to the agreement of the union; or
b.
c.
d. That the parties agree contracting out will not be allowed during the term of the agreement (including when the contract remains in force for the year following expiry).
e.
f.
The second of these options is the “low trust” option and raises the prospect that this matter is not settled. Nothing stops the parties putting up a claim in future agreements to provide for contracting and removing it from this agreement would send a strong and clear signal that the parties intend to make this agreement work.

Rostering/utilisation

The union has put a number of proposals on the table to increase utilisation. It has done so in the context that was set out in its document on 12 January. Much of this context remains relevant to the bargaining now. We said:

“It is our desire to see the Port performing well and returning a fair dividend to the rates payers of Auckland. This has been demonstrated by the co-operation of MUNZ in the TRACC initiative at the Port to date and the excellent performance of engineering where it has been utilised, and by the increase in productivity at the Port over the year in other areas.

It is not our view that there is any “crisis” of performance at the Port and consider it unfortunate and misleading that this impression is being conveyed. The Port is performing as well or better than other Ports in New Zealand and compares well internationally. The fact the contracting “bare bones” collective agreement options now being promoted by the Port have only surfaced in the last few weeks when prior Port offers included no immediate changes to rosters and were instead predicated on a productivity investigation using TRACC, suggests the Port itself was satisfied with the substance of the current collective agreement rostering arrangements at least until the TRACC process identified areas for improvements. It is not tenable for the Port management to now suggest a crisis has occurred resulting in the new position of the management to these negotiations.

While the Council may be demanding a higher return for its investment, it is unclear how much of this can be achieved by changes to the roster system of the workforce and there are a number of underlying challenges that the Port would need to address to meet the Council goal of a 12% return in 5 years. In fact MUNZ believe achieving this off the current asset base with the current profile of shipping to and from NZ is unlikely and is unwilling to let its members be the “fall guy” for this type of unrealistic expectation. Even if wages were significantly reduced at the Port these targets would not be achieved and the issue of return needs a more comprehensive response than simply attacking working conditions.

The Ports own Annual Report notes that the container and bulk cargo volumes were up in the 2010/2011 year despite the economic situation. It brags of the all time best crane rates that were achieved in the year, up 4.1% on the previous best quarter. It notes the continued productivity improvements and raises no challenges to finding more. It is disingenuous to suggest the Port workforce have not played a role in this and cannot play a role going forward.

A recent investigation by the Ministry of Transport into container rate productivity of New Zealand ports said that the rate “appears at least comparable with, and in some cases better than, Australian and other international ports.”

Figures also suggest the returns on equity in relation to other NZ Ports vary, with Auckland out performing ports like Tauranga in 2010 but not in 2011. Given Auckland has higher land values than Tauranga and was impacted by the downturn in imports to a larger extent than Tauranga, the returns are still arguably comparable or better. While Tauranga may have greater labour utilisation rates, this has been at the expense of secure and safe employment and regardless of this, it is not clear it out performs Auckland in any substantial way and in fact under performs in some areas.

In order for this dispute to be settled in a way the preserves a semblance of optimism about the future relationships on the Port, productivity on the Port and the overall success of the Port in the next 2 to 5 years, today is extremely important.

Unless the parties are able to reach a compromise to move them forward and take advantage of cooperative tools such as TRACC to move beyond the rhetoric and continue to improve performance at the Port within a decent work framework then the future of the Port is bleak for all the parties.

If the current trajectory of the dispute continues and MUNZ “win” this dispute, then the chances for a cooperative model of change will be hugely reduced, the workforce is likely to be split because of the disruption “winning” will cause, and workers are likely to have lost income and work opportunities in the process and the Port will have lost considerable opportunity, money and goodwill. If the Port “win” this dispute on its current trajectory then it is likely to end up with an inexperienced and unhappy workforce, little co-operation, poor quality jobs, a reputation amongst international union members as a bad employer and no guarantee of any productivity improvements or industrial peace. The reality is, is that there is not going to be a “winner” unless the direction that this dispute has taken changes course.

MUNZ believes the time to settle is now, on the basis of compromise from both sides with a plan that takes a long term view and continues to build on the success already achieved in terms of productivity over the last couple of years. “

In that light on 12 January the union proposed a number of changes to labour utilisation including:

• The future of the 1,2 roster, 2/3 group and permanent third rostered group be discussed– this covers a group of workers who are only able to be rostered on the first and second shifts with other restrictions. Removing this rostering arrangement would allow more flexibility in the rostering of these staff particularly around weekend work.
•
• The percentage of AA positions be reviewed. These positions balance security of employment (the guarantee of at least 24 hours work per week) with the flexibility. Allowing for more of these positions will increase even further the flexibility of employment within the agreement. These workers to get priority before causal workers to extra shifts up to 5 shifts per week
•
• Movement between 8 and 12 hour shifts for stevedores can also be discussed but key issues will be – a reasonable lock-in period on a shift, reasonable notice of a change, and mutual agreement. Need to design issues regarding long hour driving.
•
• Arrangements to speed up the change over times during a shift from driver to driver – to be discussed.
•
• Change overtime provisions to allow overtime after the standard shift subject to 2, 4 or 8 hour overtime orders. Orders below 8 hours to be paid at overtime rate with any 8 hour extra shift payable at ordinary time.
•
•

We are interested in developing these proposals to meet the issues regarding utilisation. Other areas to consider include allocation methods to ensure availability of skilled staff when needed, break times for straddle drivers, the potential for greater utilisation of crane drivers and foreman positions, the utilisation of P24 positions over 7 days, the use of briefing time not used in briefing. Issues such as staggered starts or overtime prior to a shift may be useful and should be discussed.

13. Remaining union claims
14.
15.
a. Extended Coverage – the union wishes to discuss this.
b.
c. Term to be discussed
d.
e. Wages – the union claim for 2.5% for the first year stands. The implications of non union workers being paid more than union workers needs to be resolved.
f.
g. Christmas day (to be discussed)
h.
i. The availability of full time work for AAs before casuals are utilised.
j.
k. Conlinxx. We need to find a mutually acceptable way that this matter concerning a company 90% owned by POA can be addressed in a reasonable timeframe. We want to see shuttles fully utilised by our members and we are prepared to use this timeframe to achieve that. The union wants to use a problem solving approach to consider the options for ensuring this matter does not delay settlement.
l.
m.

ends

© Scoop Media