Site sections:
by Susan Hornsby-Geluk, Partner
The industrial action at Ports of Auckland is becoming increasingly protracted and acrimonious. The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) has reportedly notified the Ports of Auckland of further planned strikes, and mediation between the parties has failed to resolve the dispute.
Reports suggest that the reason for the strike is the Union’s discontent over the terms and conditions offered to non-union employees, and their wish to reverse a decision which saw four positions outsourced 18 months ago. Ports of Auckland appear to have issued their lockout notices in response to MUNZ’s strike notices, and to minimise the industrial disruption created by intermittent strikes.
Full work stoppage strikes and lockouts are extreme measures. Striking and locked out employees lose pay, the employer loses productively and often profit, and the industrial action creates division in the workforce. Accordingly, industrial action of this nature is usually reserved for those collective bargaining rounds where key terms and conditions are at stake, and protracted bargaining has failed to resolve the differences of opinion.
However, in this instance, on the face of it, MUNZ’s demands do not seem to be directly aimed at providing their members with better working conditions. Their first demand, relating to the terms and conditions of non-union employees, seems largely irrelevant to the terms and conditions of existing union members.
MUNZ’s concern appears to be that Ports of Auckland is offering individual employment agreements to employees that have higher rates of pay, but do not include the superannuation entitlements, meal allowances, and health insurance benefits that are provided for in the collective agreement. MUNZ’s concern is that these terms and conditions were fought for, and hard won, and are now being removed from individual employment agreements. Ports of Auckland say that the Union is incorrect on this point and that these entitlements are in fact provided to non-union employees.
In any event the question is, what has this got to do with the union and its members? It seems to be about power and control of the workplace.
It should be recognised that employees are only entitled to strike if the strike relates to bargaining for a collective agreement that will bind the striking employees. The union’s demand that the terms and conditions of non-union members be altered, does not appear to be consistent with striking in support of collective bargaining, as the demand does not relate to the terms and conditions of the employees on strike.
Further, in circumstances (such as these) where the non-union workers make up a very small proportion of the 300 strong workforce, it could be argued that MUNZ is disproportionately concerned with the terms and conditions of non-union workers. In any event, there are statutory provisions which exist to prevent an employer unfairly “passing on” terms and conditions from collective agreements to non-union members.
When all of this is considered – surely some union members must be asking themselves why they are sacrificing pay by going on strike just before Christmas when their demand does not directly affect their own employment terms and conditions.
The union’s second demand does not appear to be any more meritorious. MUNZ is apparently seeking to have four positions that were outsourced 18 months ago reinstated. All four affected employees were offered redeployment, with one taking the offer and the other three choosing voluntary redundancy. The positions are long gone, and it does not appear that there was any suggestion prior to the industrial action commencing that the employer intended to outsource more positions – so why are union workers foregoing pay over this issue?
Ports of Auckland has publicly stated that the offer it had previously made to MUNZ was for a roll over of the existing collective agreement, with no changes to terms and conditions, a $200 payment to recognise backpay, a 2.5% increase to hourly rates, a promise not to make any redundancies during the term of the agreement, and a promise not to contract out any further labour during the term of the collective agreement. All in all, it would seem on the surface that this was a reasonable offer.
Despite this the industrial action has engendered some public support, including the firefighters union marching in support of the striking workers.
The ongoing industrial action has been a catalyst in Maersk’s decision to remove a substantial contract to Tauranga. Following notification of Maersk’s decision, MUNZ issued a further strike notice – a move that would seem to be counter productive. In response to the loss of the Maersk business, Ports of Auckland has now indicated that it will have to consider making employees redundant.
So what has the industrial action achieved? Already the employer’s offer to make no redundancies has been taken off the table, and the company is looking at the possibility of contracting out proposals.
Ports of Auckland has claimed that it cannot recall an occasion in the last 15 years where MUNZ did not undertake industrial action of some kind during collective bargaining. If this is true, it might be time for the union to consider whether the industrial action is becoming a blunt tool and causing more damage than good.