Keeping PoAL workers out makes no sense industrially.
It means the port’s taking a political and PR hit without even gaining some cleared containers.
But perhaps getting the port making money isn’t the endgame for this dispute…
I wish to tender my resignation as Chair of the Ports of Auckland Board. I took a profitable and efficient Port and lost it millions of dollars in contracts. I spent, inappropriately, substantial amounts of money on a public relations campaign against our staff that could have been spent reinvesting in the port or returning to Auckland Council. The financial position of the Port is in a dire decline. We wish
Despite the court making them return to the bargaining table, PoAL Chair Richard Pearson seems to fail to understand some basic principles of employment law.
His comments on morning report suggest he’s either ignorant of some basic legal issues or still has no regard for good faith bargaining.
I’d suggest that either case indicates there’s a need for the council to step in and put some responsible adults in charge of this company.
It’s a bit rich that PoAL are claiming they’re “investigating” online privacy breaches now when it’s obvious they’ve been colluding with Cameron Slater for months.
It’s also interesting that the limited “no comment” comment PoAL has issued has been in Tony Gibson’s name rather than Richard Pearson’s.
Looks like Ports of Auckland have been unlawfully passing workers’ private information to Cameron Slater.
It’s just another example of the intimidation and thuggery the port management is becoming well known for.
It turns out that the report that provided the basis for a 12% return on equity at the Ports of Auckland is based not on something commissioned by them. Instead it comes from the previous employers of the current chairman at PoA, who have previously been interested in buying ports in NZ. And the comparisons used for the ROE are spurious.
