MUNZ

Is there a Governance Crisis at the NZCTU? – An Observation by The Owl

Over the last few months 2 of the 6 (technically) affiliated unions (NZ Meat Workers Union and Maritime Union of NZ) who get to vote on David Shearer’s future have been put under the spotlight by the Registrar of the Incorporated Societies. It has been proven they have both failed to file complete returns with the Registrar.

The NBR also questioned a 3^rd union, the EPMU, on their balance sheet regarding a Pike River Trust. The EPMU have been reporting losses and the EPMU Education and Training Trust fund for members remains solvent only because the EPMU does not demand the $6M loan back as qualified by their auditors. (The Trust assets are approximately $3M.)

A number of so called affiliate unions to the NZCTU have been reporting losses, failing to declare income for GST purposes and generally been late with their financial returns. But to be fair some unions are good at compliance.

The ultimate responsibility of the NZCTU is to their members. Are there governance policies in place at the NZCTU head office to manage its individual unions when they fall out of line?

The Owl asks, is there a governance crisis? Here is a great example of good governance by a governing body.

When the Otago Rugby Union got into trouble – the NZ Rugby Union went down there, told them to sort themselves out and if they didn’t the NZRFU would liquidate them. The Board was changed and a number of people stood down. This is good governance from the top and Otago flourished on the field in 2012. The word on the street is it is a pretty happy camp now – a good dose of “tough love”

Owl’s Observation

The Owl believes the Labour Party Executive should demand that the NZCTU develop a good governance model to manage their affiliates if they want to get 20% of the voting rights.

The Labour Party Executive can exercise their governance control and meet with the NZCTU just like the NZ Rugby Union did with the Otago Rugby Union.

Current day unions only represent between 6-9% of the workers in private industry. Does this means the Labour Party is being distracted by pleasing a few when actually they are missing out on potentially serving the 94% of working voters?

The Owl is looking forward to analysing the results of the Labour Party Conference

MUNZ calls to sack POAL CEO and Board – by the Owl

MUNZ have called for the Mayor to immediately sack POAL CEO and Board and appoint a moderate board.

Their press release says:

“Ports of Auckland workers at the meeting called on the Mayor of Auckland to sack the CEO and the Board and restore a moderate management who respects its workforce, says Mr Parsloe”.

Further points are made that they are protecting New Zealanders in their actions.

“They do this in the name of their families, the city of Auckland and New Zealand workers.  The mayor and council can fix this if they want to.”

Owl’s Observation:

These statements are at odds with a press release issued late Friday by MUNZ which said which is yet to appear on MUNZ website:

“In the meantime we will be maintaining the integrity of the process of Facilitation and not commenting further while we work through the agreed process.”

This comment was because POAL updated their website with an up to date state of play on the facilitation process.

I did quantum maths at school.

“x” + Integrity = sacking (I can’t quite work what “x” equals?).

This needs to be resolved as a festering sore can become quite nasty.

The Owl has been digging into the Maritime Union’s affairs and it looks like they may well be in the same spot of bother that the Meatworkers Union is.

More importantly it may mean that Local 13 of the Maritime Union is an illegal union. They are collecting fees and only passing through capitation fees to the Maritime Union. Local 13 is not registered as a union and nor has it presented any accounts as required by law. My understanding is existing contracts and agreements are in the name of Local 13 and not in the name of the Maritime Union.

In my opinion Ports of Auckland should seek an immediate judgement from the courts on the validity of Local 13 continuing to negotiate and represent members at the Port.

The Owl’s findings are below:

MUNZ versus NZ Meat Workers Union

The Registrar Office has put the hard word on the NZ Meat Workers Union to file consolidated accounts and according to press releases this could add up to millions.

The issue lies around a word called “capitation” which means that all branches pay HQ a capitation fee of a set amount for the number of members each branch has.

I took the time to review other unions that have branches as well and the Maritime Union has the same set up.

2011 Accounts

Affiliation Fees $338,058.00

Registered Members according to Department of Labour Returns 2,580

Therefore average Capitation Fee $131.00

Annual Union Fees per member? At Local 13 the union fees depend on hours worked and are worked out at 1.5% of wages. That works out at between $10-$35 per week.

The majority of the Affiliation Fees comes from a branch called Seafarers $153,927.00

Owls Observation

The Owl has always said he doesn’t care what businesses spend their money on or what their business model is. What I do care about is process.

It looks like MUNZ has the same issue as the NZ Meat Workers Union and I wonder if the Registrar is taking the same hard line.

(Note: All information is available in the public domain and the Owl always apologises if incorrect.)

The Maritime Union has again been shellacked by the ERA. Remember when I blogged about Carl Findlay and his dodgy activities? Well the union sought to have his case used to slow down the negotiations toward a new contract on the wharves and the Emplyment Relations Authority has slammed them for it:

A second Employment Relations Authority ruling in as many weeks has gone Ports of Auckland’s way, with the authority ruling the port company was justified in giving a staff member a final warning.

It follows a decision earlier this month that the removal of two foreman’s roles at the port would not undermine current contract negotiations with wharfies or result in unsafe work practices, as the Maritime Union of New Zealand had claimed.

In the latest decision, the ERA said Ports of Auckland was within its rights to give stevedore Carl Findlay a final written warning for removing a letter from a manager’s office.

Findlay used a ruler to retrieve a letter written by another stevedore, Tamati Davie, from underneath stevedoring manager Jonathan Hulme’s locked office door.

The letter was in response to an investigation Hulme was conducting into whether Davie had passed on confidential Ports of Auckland information to the Maritime Union.

Davie put the letter under Hulme’s door but decided he wanted to add to his response so asked Findlay – who is vice president of the Auckland branch of the union – to get it back.

Findlay made no attempt to contact Hulme to ask for permission to retrieve it, the ERA said. Despite being confronted by a senior staff member who saw what he did, and receiving a text from Hulme the next morning asking for the letter back, Findlay did not return it, the authority said.

His actions did not constitute serious misconduct as the port company said, but were serious enough for the port to issue a written warning. Ports of Auckland acted in a “procedurally fair manner”, the authority said.

The Maritime Union is usually very quick to rush to the news media over any perceived slight to their domination ont he wharves. They will be very quiet over this judgment from the Employment Relations Authority (full judgment PDF):

Parties:

Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland Ltd

Summary:

BREACH OF CONTRACT – HEALTH AND SAFETY – Applicant claimed respondent’s proposal to disestablish two foreman roles would result in unsafe work practices in breach of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Authority found no tangible evidence indicating proposed change would compromise health and safety – No breach of contract – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent’s failure to consult adequately over proposal breach of good faith – Found respondent explained to applicant effect of proposed changes on who would carry out foreman’s work – No breach of good faith – GOOD FAITH – BARGAINING – Applicant claimed respondent’s proposal undermined bargaining for new CEA – Found disestablishment of foreman roles operational matter rather than bargaining issue – Found bargaining not undermined by respondent pursuing matter not subject to collective bargaining for new CEA – No breach of good faith

This was nothing more than a shameless delaying tactic by the union. I note that costs have been reserved. I hope the union gets slammed for this.

Good luck reading about this anywhere but here.

As MUNZ and the NZCTU run around claiming underhand tactics (“ruse”) on the formation of the new PortPro Union is wanting to negotiate with the ports management (POAL) – a number of interesting issues come to mind.

I wrote many months ago about how Union members pay MUNZ to represent them – secure employment conditions and in particular provide a service. I made the observation that a Union member could indeed take the service provider (in this case MUNZ) to task if the failed to achieve their outcome.

I linked it to the classic contract wording of “offer and acceptance”.

PortPro is a new competitor on the wharf in “Unionland”. They saw an opportunity and decided to build a business around it. What are they offering? – I am assuming “Employment Service Advice”

The general public tends to use the word “Union” – but reality is that a “Union” is an “Employment Service Advice Agency”.

PortPro have 33 members (according to the NZ Herald Report) – or once again shall we call them 33 clients.

Most people in business know that getting 33 clients on day one is a major achievement. In my business I had to give away countless free products before I secured my first full paying customer.

More importantly PortPro is going to advise its clients how to get the best deal in the marketplace, best employment advice and overall secure long-term contracts. One would assume PortPro have sent out details about what they want to achieve and the services they provide. 33 people have decided to become customers or clients.

Even if MUNZ settles with POAL and holds the head collective agreement, the sharp point of this move by PortPro is there is a “new union on the block”. I cannot give a better example of what a “new competitor does” by referring you to the Telco industry – Telecom versus, Vodafone versus 2 Degrees.

There is also the classic story of Virgin Airways and British Airways when the new Virgin airline was set up.

Both examples went through very interesting court cases and parliament stages before the industries were deregulated or as some would say – more regulated.

Telecom spent years in court defending their position and then Parliament split Telecom up.

BAA and Virgin spent years in court with BAA defending strongly their position and then the aviation industry was overhauled by Parliament in England.

The Owl predicts that PortPro is the start of many new Unions to spring up which focuses on Employment Services (and Health and Safety – I do agree H & S is paramount, it is just whether you use it for political reasons) – there may even be a court battle and possibly intervention by Parliament.

For me the most interesting point and I think it will only be resolved in court will be if PortPro is allowed the freedom of speech on the wharf which the Unions have desperately sought in getting accountability on the wharf by the POAL Management and demanding good employer processes.

PortPro now challenges those assertions and tests whether a good employer will allow two unions to operate at one site. Many businesses have multi-union sites so precedence has been set.

There is a new union on the port, set up to provide competition against the old bully boy union thugs of the Maritime Union.

Ports of Auckland is to open negotiations today with a new union of non-striking workers, raising alarm in the Council of Trade Unions.

CTU president Helen Kelly suspects the creation of the new organisation, PortPro, is “a ruse” to sideline the established Maritime Union and set new working conditions while its dispute with the port remains unsettled.

That is denied by the company and PortPro chairman, veteran wharfie and former Maritime Union member Grant Lane, who said his purpose was purely to protect the positions of 33 stevedoring employees who worked through the earlier disruption and “had a gutsful” of the old union.

Port spokeswoman Dee Radhakrishnan said there had been no company involvement in setting up the new body, but it was legally obliged to respond to the group’s bargaining overtures.

Helen Kelly has stuck her nose on and suggested that a new union is highly suspicious…strange behaviour from a life long unionist to oppose a new union. Obviously she doesn;t think that the new union is militant enough or destructive enough to meet her tough standards.

Maybe the 33 workers who have joined the new union are just simply fed up with the intransigence of Garry Parsloe and the Maritime Union.

ᔥ NZ Herald

For ungrateful Cecil Walker wants sorry:

One of the Ports of Auckland strikers wants a public apology after leaked private information about his wife’s death became a weapon in the industrial action early this year.

Crane driver Cecil Walker said his union delegate had received an email from the Privacy Commission which indicated the port was responsible for the leak.

The commission had sought feedback from port management – a step taken when it reaches an adverse finding.

Personal details about the 2008 death of Mr Walker’s wife, Michelle, were published on the Whaleoil website after he was featured in a radio interview during the strike, including the amount of leave he took during her illness and details of the port’s efforts on behalf of the Walkers and their three children.

…

Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater, who enjoyed access to the ports during the strike, said the information had been sent anonymously from “multiple” sources. He said he had no regrets over its publication.

Enjoyed access??? WTF? Fisher really should have printed what I said when he rang me for comment. I said I asked the Port for access…they agreed…they also had TV3 on the port the same day I was there…were they also “enjoying access”?

But since Cecil wants sorrry…how about this:

ᔥ Herald on Sunday

Matt McCarten has called for the ehads of organisations that make big losses:

But the ultimate poke in the eye is not far away, with Auckland Port on the verge of formally giving up on its campaign to contract the jobs of their wharfies. After endless posturing, thousands of dollars in lost wages for each of their employees, tens of millions of dollars in lost business and additional costs to clients, I think the port’s managers should take a leaf out of their counterparts at ACC and resign – if it pans out as I expect.

That is a grand suggestion of Matt McCarten and if that is his benchmark I look forward to him calling for the heads of the CTU, EPMU, Unite and PPTA unions…all of which have made big losses, in the millions, of members money.

Fat chance we will see the same accountability for Helen Kelly, Andrew Little, Matt McCarten and Kate Gainsford that is demanded of the managers and board of the Ports of Auckland.

Another Observation by the Owl – Educating Incorporated Societies members on reading Financial Statements

I am using the MUNZ Trust as an example as all information is in the public domain.

The MUNZ Trust has provided the MUNZ Union the following income as per their audited accounts:

2008 $150,000.00

2009 $104,000.00

2010 $80,000.00

2011 $50,000.00

The Auditors statement identifies the MUNZ Trust and says in it notes that they do not need to be incorporated into the Accounts.

As a Trust can be private I have no problem with this and support the Auditors notes to the accounts. I also support MUNZ’s identifying it in their notes as well. (As you know the Owl is balanced) However thinking this through there are three interesting points.

• The Balance Sheet shows a MUNZ Trust asset and liability line which identifies there is some sort of transactional event happening between the Trust and the Union over and above the income sponsorship.
•  Who owns the Trust? – If it is the members of the Union who are the overriding owners of the Trust then the members should have access to the audited accounts of the Trust. Maybe they do.
•  If I was a member of an organisation who received such large income streams then I would ask the question of the validity of the income stream and how this income stream is derived for peace of mind.

Finally there is a diminishing income every year and that could indicate any of the three things to the members:

1.  The Trustees have determined what they can and can’t afford to pass onto the Union.
2. That the asset base which generates the income from the Trust is declining.
3. The Trustees have determined a new strategic or business plan and maybe re-investing their capital return.

The Owl’s observation

There seems to be liberal accounting policies regarding incorporated societies while company, personal and public department accountings laws are quite rigid.

As I have gone on this journey uncovering the world of incorporated societies I have found how much variation there is on what is recorded and available.

I have been analyzing the information provided by the National Party accounts and am happy/unhappy to say it is also an interesting read. The Greens have an interesting format – I couldn’t find the NZ Labour Party accounts and Mana Party, couldn’t find it at all.

I actually believe incorporated societies generally act within the law and do their best with limited resources.

The Charity Commission looks like it has a good system going where basic information is required to be filed e.g. number of staff, a front sheet of income and expenditure etc.

1.  Is it time for an overhaul of the system?
2. How does the government educate the members of incorporated societies to read their financial statements and what they mean? Is a simple questionnaire front sheet format the way to go that all incorporated societies must fill in?

Note: All information is sourced from the public domain. The Owl always apologises if an error has been made and also want to say very publicly that this is not a review of MUNZ – it is just a very good example to use and to be fair on MUNZ there are a number in the same boat – left and right side of the political spectrum.