A
High Court challenge failed to overturn a trespass notice issued by Ports of Auckland
against a former employee it alleges was disrupting port operations. In addition, notice barring a union delegate
from Port premises was upheld.
In recent years,
industrial unrest on the Auckland waterfront has received considerable media
attention. Ports of Auckland management
say productivity must improve.
In November 2013, a
trespass notice was given to former employee Kenneth Ziegler warning him to
stay out of the Port. He had been
dismissed two months previously after allegations he had threatened to kill
Port of Auckland’s general manger (operations). He said a trespass notice prevented him from
working for a private stevedoring company operating at the Port.
Ports of Auckland
conceded that the waterfront area is a “quasi public space”. Several thousand people access the Port daily:
employees of the Port, staff from government departments and private
contractors, as well as seamen crewing vessels docked in port. Justice Woolford ruled there were no grounds
for the court to review this trespass notice.
Issuing a trespass notice was not a public issue justifying judicial
review; it was a private matter between Mr Ziegler and his former employer. The fact that Mr Ziegler now cannot access
the port to work for a private stevedoring company or to crew a vessel is an
unfortunate but inevitable consequence of his previous behaviour, His Honour
said.
In January 2014, Ports
of Auckland advised union delegate David Phillips that he was barred from the
Port. He previously enjoyed unfettered port
access assisting members of the Maritime Union and inspecting vessels on behalf
of the International Transport Federation.
Two months later, Mr Phillips resigned as union delegate with the
intention of working on the waterfront part-time as a stevedore. The court was told access was denied
following blog posts written by Mr Phillips labelling non-union labour as
scabs, saying they should “live every day fearing a backlash and looking over
their shoulders”. Mr Phillips said
refusal of access was in breach of his Bill of Rights entitlement to freedom of
movement. Justice Woolford said the Bill
of Rights does not apply to commercial operations run by Ports of Auckland. He ruled Ports of Auckland acted within the
law by taking steps to protect both its commercial operations and the interests
of its employees.
Ziegler
v. Ports of Auckland – High Court (10.09.14)
14.039