Garry Parsloe

Port 16 – 0 MUNZ

Another “Ghost Ship” has arrived at Ports of Auckland

Garry Parsloe said that not a?single?ship would be?discharged?at Fergusson wharf. Chris Trotter said the ships will pass Auckland by and Helen Kelly said that Maersk had stopped sending ships to Auckland.

The Maersk Radford docked this morning and is discharging cargo now and not a single union worker is on the port.

Contrary to another Parsloe and Kelly lie this Maersk ship shows up on the AIS data too.

MUNZ Muppet’s Ctd

Following on from yesterday’s revelation that MUNZ is having a fundraiser by screening The Muppet Show this image was posted in the comments.

Garry Parsloe isn’t anywhere near as witty as Statler.

Port 15 – 0 MUNZ

Two more ships are currently discharging at Fergusson wharf.

Garry Parsloe said that not a single ship would be worked. Chris Trotter said that ship would pass by the Port. Yet we have two new ships this morning being discharged and loaded.

Irenes Rainbow and JPO Leo?are alongside at Fergusson wharf. That is three ships in two days. And not a single union worker on the Port.

Today the Maritime Union and POAL are in the Employment Court.



Garry Parsloe doesn’t really have a grip on reality does he?

Maritime Union president Garry Parsloe said the Ports of Auckland appeared to have no plan for getting the port up and running again.

?Ports of Auckland continue to raise ?ghost? health and safety concerns in the media as the basis for what the union considers to be an unlawful breach of these workers? employment agreements. ?

The union has attempted to resolve this dispute but the single focus of the Port to dismiss its workforce is overruling all common sense, he said.

Ports of Auckland representatives rejected a union proposal for workers to be allowed to return to work and be paid compensation for lost wages last week, he said.

Parsloe would not comment further due to a confidentiality agreement with the Ports of Auckland.

The Port does have a plan, contracting them all out to workers who are prepared to work for 40 hours instead of 28 hours.

No wonder mediation failed when the union was demanding compensation for lost wages. How about the union compensate all the businesses that have lost work because of their intransigence and unwillingness to change?

The unions actions?have?cost this country and in particular the Auckland region literally millions of dollars and they have the cheek to demand compensation.

Paul Holmes calls out MUNZ

? NZ Herald

Paul Holmes calls time on Garry Parsloe and his band of thugs, bullies and racists masquerading as?negotiators:

Anyway, I formed the view that the ports company have not been ungenerous in their offers to the union. In fact, even Auckland Mayor Len Brown himself agreed that the company’s first offer made early last September should have been accepted.

The offer would have rolled over the collective agreement and given the workers a 2.5 per cent pay increase each year for three years. There were several offers but early on the company decided it could no longer tolerate its workers getting paid for sitting around doing nothing.

I do not believe the union when it says that it’s a lie that the workers earn in excess of $90,000 for an average 26 hours work. Ports of Auckland had Ernst and Young audit the figures. And that’s something you notice about the ports’ conduct throughout the dispute. They’ve done things very thoroughly.

The union’s argument that its people ceasing to be permanent staff would mean that their families couldn’t plan things was obliterated by the company’s offer to roster the men for 160 hours a month, and the roster delivered a month ahead. For the life of me, I can’t see what’s wrong with that.

I think the union was dyed in the wool. I think they didn’t read the signs. Before they knew it, it was all over. Nearly 300 men were made redundant, just like that. End of story. I think there were some hardliners who’ve buggered things up for everyone. Hysteria is never a good thing.

Garry Parsloe needs to call a meeting Monday morning and hold a secret ballot and then call the Ports of Auckland management and negotiate a return to work or facilitate placing the strikers in the new contracting companies. He and his “biker” gang of union leaders should resign themselves to unemployment.

Losing the battles and the wars

? Auckland Now

The Maritime Union is losing the battles and ultimately the war down at the Port:

The battle lines might be murky but most Kiwis believe the ruction between the Ports of Auckland and striking wharfies is one the port bosses are in the right about.

The port and Maritime Union have been locked in a four-month industrial dispute with management wanting permanent staff to become casual workers in return for a 10 per cent pay rise. Port staff wanted a smaller pay rise in exchange for permanent hours.

Last week the union filed an injunction in the Employment Court to stop the port sacking nearly 300 workers, until the court can rule if the action is legal.

A Sunday Star-Times reader poll of over 1000 people found that 54 per cent of respondents believed the port management were right in trying to change the way staff worked. Only 27 per cent thought the union and its workers were in the right.

”This beautiful country of ours will be much better off when people stop thinking that they have some sort of entitlement to sit on their backsides and get paid for doing nothing,” one said.

The overwhelming majority, 86%, acknowledged that the dispute had national significance.? Many compared the feud with the 1951 Waterfront dispute but not in flattering terms.

”The union is trying to go back to the tactics of the 1950s which will not work now days. The union leader needs his head read,” one wrote.

Garry Parsloe needs to call a meeting of his members and put further action to a secret ballot, he needs to have an?independent?auditor of the results and then he needs to facilitate the return to work of his hoodwinked strikers. He isn’t going to win this by surrounding himself with bullies, racists and thugs.

Defamation or Outrageous Breach of Privacy?

Last week as pretty hectic was I continued to tell the truth about the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly. Busting each and every one of their falsehoods that were feeding the gullible and accepting media.

Via my tipline I released the details of a wharfie who maligned the company that had been so generous to him.

Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe along with all the useful idiots of the leftwing of the blogosphere jumped up and down calling it an outrageous breach of privacy and a “disgraceful breach of trust“. The poor hard done by wharfie even went on television and had a bit of a sook about how outraged he was about the breach of privacy, and one of his mates sent threats via email.

Then after I went on Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden to talk about the issue Helen Kelly went all septic and threatened legal action for slander and defamation of “her worker”.

Note her words…”slandered one of our members”…and…”got the facts completely wrong”…and…”completely untrue”. Strong and emphatic words, not much room for wriggle there.

Now this is where it gets interesting. In order for there to be a slander or a defamation of her worker then I must have not told truth. If, as I contend, I have told the truth then no defamation or slander has occurred. Neither is there a slander or defamation action possible against Radio Rhema if I told the truth.

Which puts the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly in a difficult position.

Either I told the truth and there was an outrageous breach of privacy, and that is one position they have, after all they have complained to the Privacy Commissioner about it.

Or, it is a slander and defamation because I did not tell the truth and therefore their action with the Privacy Commissioner is about to fail.

The two positions cannot exist together.

I know what the truth is, and I can reasonably be assured that any defamation or slander action by Helen Kelly will fail as?spectacularly?as their strike action is currently failing.

They can stick with the line that I have slandered their worker, that everything I have said is “completely untrue” and that I got the “facts completely wrong”…and we can visit that and test it in court…or they can admit that their complaint to the Privacy Commissioner is now based entirely on lies. Of course the reverse is possible…that the details I released are in fact correct and Cecil Walker is an ungrateful and disloyal wretch, and that I haven’t slandered him at all.

As I have said above the two positions ?cannot possibly exist together. Helen Kelly has some choices to make.

The truth about Port Safety

Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe have been shamelessly shroud waving over the deaths of 3 workers at Tauranga. They say that this shows that worker safety is at issue and why?contracting?out at?the?Ports of Auckland must be opposed at all costs.

I have already busted their lies over this but this week they again ran these lines.

I contacted Ports of Tauranga about this issue and?received?a reply from their CEO Mark Cairns. He said he was happy for me to release the details below:

Thanks for your e-mail, Cam.

We have been really disappointed with the factual inaccuracies and unprofessional misrepresentation of the safety record of our port by the CTU President, Helen Kelly.? Unfortunately, we have had to waste shareholders? money (which ironically includes >90% of our staff who hold shares in the Company) to instruct our solicitors to warn Ms Kelly against recklessly continuing in this regard.? Her statements about the safety record of this port are factually incorrect and we believe deliberately misleading.

We are aware that the CTU have made an Official Information Request to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), seeking our port?s claims history.? We are aware of this because ACC asked for our consent to release this information as they are bound to do under the Privacy Act.? We of course agreed to this information being released as we are proud of the improvement in safety performance at the port.

The actual ACC claims history shows Port of?Tauranga?to have one of the best safety records of all New Zealand ports ? less than half the NZ ports? average.? Ms Kelly is in possession of this information, but chooses to ignore it, as it clearly does not fit her argument.

This data from ACC is presented graphically for your information below.? Again, because of Privacy Act issues, ACC disguise the names of other NZ ports.? Perhaps you could ask Ports of Auckland to identify which port they are?

Port Safety Performance - Comparative


Safety is our number 1 priority at the Port and in fact we have a goal of achieving a zero harm work environment and considerable management effort is focused on striving to achieve this goal.? Our Board set a target this financial year to try and achieve a 30% improvement in Total Injury Frequency Rate – we are proud to have just achieved this improvement last month.

Ms Kelly also goes on to suggest there is a race to the bottom between the two ports with respect to pay and working conditions.? I would dispute this: many of our skilled workers actually earn more than the Ernst & Young figures for Ports of Auckland?s average stevedoring income.? I am very comfortable with this – our employees and contractors are highly skilled and work very hard to consistently deliver upper decile productivity. I guess the main difference though is that they expect to be working, when they are paid to be working!? Maybe this explains why our Port of?Tauranga?has net crane productivity rates 38% greater than Ports of Auckland?s (Ministry of Transport data) or on a gross measure (not allowing for netting out smoko breaks and any industrial action), the difference in gross crane rate between Ports of Auckland and Port of?Tauranga?is some 60% (shipping line data).

This is pretty interesting stuff. Mark Cairns has confirmed that Helen Kelly has warned legally about using incoirrect and inaccurate information regarding the detahs of the workers.

We also now know that despite the union claims that contracting out is a race to the bottom that Port of Tauranga workers earn more than current Ports of Auckland wharfies who are earning on average $91,000 perannum.

And that Tauranga, despite the claims of Garry parsloe and Helen Kelly is actually one of the safest ports in New Zealand. Quite how they compare against Ports of Auckland though I can only guess as they are yet to?respond?to my request for confirmation as to which bar on?the?chart is theirs. Is Ports of Auckland perhaps Port J? If it is then that really does extinguish the union’s credibility.

Every claim made by the union, through either Garry Parsloe or Helen Kelly has been proven to be incorrect. Every single claim they have made has been proven incorrect. Once day in my lifetime the media will surely have to stop?believing?and printing their lies without fact checking first.

Port 10 – 0 MUNZ

Another one of Garry Parsloe so-called ghost Ships turned up again last night.

Remember that Garry Parsloe and Chris Trotter have said that ship will pass the port by and not a single ship would be processed at Fergusson wharf. ?Right now there are two ships being processed at Fergusson.

It seems that not only can we see Parlsoe’s ghost ships but so can the cameras.

Schelde Trader arrived last night.

Port 9 – 0 MUNZ

Once again Garry Parsloe’s hollow promise that not a single would be worked at Ports of Auckland has been proven false.

So too has Helen Kelly’s lie that Maersk wouldn’t be sending ships to Auckland while the strike is on.

This morning at 0630 Santa Belina docked and is discharging cargo. Yet another ship that didn’t follow the words of Chris Trotter and pass Auckland by.

Another union lie, that Maersk ships were turning off the AIS, is also proven false again. Here is the AIS data for the ship showing its track into the harbour and Fergusson.