Forum Archive Index - October 2002

[Marilyn Munroe <who.c@res.co.nz>]

Someone several days ago wondered if any sharchaters were at the Lyttelton 
Port Co. annual general meeting. I was. Here are my observations.

Controversy over Councillor Erin Baker's (known more widely as a former 
triathlete) election as director:

I agree with the comments made at the meeting that it is bad form for an 
individual seeking election as a director not to attend the meeting where 
the candidacy is being decided.

Non attendance at such a meeting implies that the candidate is so busy with
other commitments that they are unable to give their time to level required 
of a director or that they are unwilling to submit themselves to the 
scrutiny of shareholders.

These assumptions may be wrong but if Councillor Baker had been present 
these doubts could have been quickly laid to rest.

Chairmans rulings:

The election of Councillor Baker was unpopular with the shareholders present.
An amendment that the election or Councillor Baker be postponed was 
considered and rejected.

On both the amendment and the substantive motion to elect Councillor Baker a 
clear majority of the voices were opposed to the candidate. Dr Layton however 
on declared Councillor Baker elected.

The explanation he gave was that he had noted the voice vote of the person 
holding the proxy rights on behalf of Christchurch City Holdings, the 
majority shareholder. He ruled that her voice vote alone was sufficient to 
elect Councillor Baker.

I may be an old bush lawyer but I was under the impression that each 
shareholders voice vote carried equal weight. If either the chairman, the 
proxy holder, or a number of shareholder believe that the voice vote does not 
reflect the wishes of shareholders on a one share one vote basis they are 
entitled to ask that the vote be determined by a poll. 

No request for a poll was made. In my opinion the Chairman made a mistake in  
not referring these votes to a poll.

Local Body Ownership:

The Lyttelton Port Co. is 65% owned by Christchurch City Holdings the trading 
arm of the Christchurch City Council.

Many shareholders present were unhappy with the presence on the share 
register of a local body with supposed left wing leanings.

I do not share this concern. I have observed the foray of the council into 
the energy industry through Enerco (or whatever it is called now) and they 
did rather well. I think that they are sitting on a pile of cash after 
selling out, and are in the happy position of wondering what to do with it

Aucklanders will be familiar with the financial rescue mounted by those left 
wing radicals in the Alliance on the Auckland Regional Council.

The theory that woolly headed socialists would not know how to run a 
business does not stand up under examination.

Labour Relations:

Directors and shareholders both expressed frustration at the port workers 
rejection of new employment contracts that would have secured the visits by 
the big P&O Nedlloyd ships.

We are dealing here with the Rail & Maritime Union. The element they bring to 
the bargaining table is a mixture of unified and coherent membership combined 
with very able officials. This combination is going to be very difficult to 
move.

A worker present at the meeting informed us that the major sticking point in 
negotiations as far as he was concerned was rostering. He informed us that 
shipping companies are notoriously optimistic when forecasting vessel arrival 
times, resulting often in wharfies waiting around with their fingers up their 
bum with no ship to work. His beef was that the employers new contract placed 
him on call and he was to be called to work at a moments notice whenever the 
vessel actually turned up. He said that he rejected this arrangement because 
of the disruption that it would cause his personal life.

Maybe shipping companies should charged on a 'you book the labour you pay for 
it basis'. If shipping co's were charged for time they booked but could not 
use, maybe the accuracy of their forecasting would improve.

Closer examination of the issues reveal that there is an element of spin in 
the statements on labour relations emanating from the Co.

P&O Nedlloyd large ships:

The base cause of the grumpyness at the meeting was the loss of business 
caused by the decision to drop Lyttelton in favor of Port Chalmers for the 
new P&O Nedlloyd Europe direct big boats.

I do not share this unhappiness. If Sir Humphry Appleby from the television 
program Yes Minister were to describe the choice made by P&O Nedlloyd he 
would have called it courageous. They are adding to the tryany of time and 
distance for their customers in the main population & manufacturing center in 
the South Island.

Nature we are told abhors a vacum, so too with shipping. I am sure that 
there is another shipping company out there that would only be to happy to 
provide a direct European service to those Canterbury P&O Nedlloyd customers 
who will suffer as a result of this decision.

While there is a period of uncertainty ahead for the Lyttelton Port Co I am 
optimistic that the outcome will be a favourable one

Boop-boop-de-do Marilyn

PS Ignore the date of this message my CMOS clock is wonky.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/