Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This is where I went.
The struck off entity via Peter Cranney:
http://www.societies.govt.nz/pls/web/DBSIFRAME.I_Init?p_access_no=0A0861A9BECEE09E245A176DB2A72F2C&p_receipt_number=10293706&p_sequence_number=1&p_reference_number=1989296&p_called_from=ALLTAB|doc1The current entity docs - via Simon Mitchell:
http://www.societies.govt.nz/pls/web/DBSIFRAME.I_Init?p_access_no=0A0861A9BECEE09E245A176DB2A72F2C&p_receipt_number=14480655&p_sequence_number=1&p_reference_number=2541164&p_called_from=ALLTAB|doc1The Parent Website:
http://www.alliance.org.au/The NZ Entity Website:
http://www.actorsequity.org.nz/Cheers
-
Reviewing the papers that lead to the incorporation in NZ of the Media Entertainment & Art Alliance (New Zealand) Incorporated, which includes the rules, the governance is by a board with meetings of the board as and when required.
There is no specific requirement that the board consult with members and the rules for general meetings refer that meetings be called “in the same manner as that used for the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (New Zealand) Inc” which appears to be the organisation that was struck off.
The Rules of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Inc (that was struck off) provides for general meetings to be called in the same manner as that used for the NZ Branch of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (the NZ Branch of the Australian parent).
Visiting the Australian Parent website online one cannot find a copy of the rules readily available, one has to be a member of the parent and then one is given access - perhaps.
The NZ Actors’ Equity site is describes itself as an autonomous part of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and also as the industrial and professional organisation representing performers who work in New Zealand’s entertainment industries. This site does not provide a copy of the MEAA rules or its own rules.
For a “society” to be incorporated in NZ the rules need to provide, amongst other things, for a mechanism for meetings to be called, take place and cover how voting is counted. To my mind the rules as filed, for the Media Entertainment & Art Alliance (New Zealand) Incorporated (who brand themselves as NZEA) do not satisfy this requirement - refer to the EPMU site to see an example of a clear and proper set of rules.
The original application for incorporation of MEAA (NZ) Incorporated was stayed as the rules were inadequate, the rules to my mind are still inadequate as they do not provide for a mechanism for meetings as outlined above
What the rules provide is that if you are a members of NZAE – MEAA (NZ) Incorporated the governing body does not have to meet or consult with you.
How does this “union” decide on what are/is the collective interest(s) of union members – is this done by the governance committee without any reference to the rank & file.
It is fuzzy thre is a lack of an accessible set of rules that define the consultative process one would expect.
The Board it appears, as they have done, can do what they like without reference to the membership or wider acting community.
Incorporation was on the 8th of October 2010 with 15 people becoming members, the minimum statutory number, for the purposes of incorporation - there may not be much of a membership besides those who signed the application, which includes the board. Their first foray into negotiations is unlikely to win much further support than the founding members.
I can’t see how anyone that was a member of the society that was struck off would have automatically transferred his or her membership over to the new society.
So whose interests are driving the shambles?
It could be that NZAE - EAA (NZ) Incorporated should still have no legal status – they have not satisfied all the requirement to be incorporated as a society as it relates to meetings and votes and as a consquence should not be able to act as a trade union.
NZAE - EAA (NZ) Incorporated have been issued with a Certificate of Incorporation, but that is lax on the part of the registrar – as they have not satisfied the requirements at law.
Having a set of rules that refers to a rule in another set of rules is vague and dangerous – are those the 199X set of rules or the 200Y set of rules – and can the other “set of rules” can be changed without reference to your members.
You can see how the board of the NZAE –MEAA (NZ) Incorporated could be easily manipulated by the parent and the CTU. The board don’t appear to have exercised the wit to have read and understood what they were signing with incorporation.
Correct me if my assessment of the situation is wrong. This is like working on your car wasted - and then trying to read the manual when you are out of your mind and the thing turns to crap.
It really is a total fluster cluck.
-
Sorry Simon G you are right - I don't watch TV - I get my news from the Internet and radio.
The lead story on One News bears this out:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/unions-promise-more-protests-2-28-video-3844658In the One News piece Helen Kelly's comments, "Well I'd like to see the govt start listening to working people and respecting their needs". The same could be said about the CTU & NZAE- MEAA whose actions have undermined the thrust of what the "union movement" where attempting to highlight.
The most commented news item from all sources is the "Hobbit Shambles", that is here at Hard News and many other places.
-
Blake Monkley - The situation one where the union executive go outside the rules and pursue their own agenda and call for industrial action (the blacklist) with out a resolution from the membership.
Employment relationships are a trinity – Union to Employer – Employer to Employee – Union to Employee.
The union executive should at law not be able to call for or initiate industrial action without a resolution from the floor. It is not the decision of the union executive to make. That is my point.
The EPMU are very thorough yes I agree – they operate one would say in a manner where they do the right thing the right way.
I feel that when a union executive initiates industrial action without a valid resolution, that person should face a penalty, a ban from holding office and also be excluded from taking part in the negotiations.
There should also be support for union members to take such an action against the union – The ERA or Employment Court should be able to on application appoint an advocate to take the case on behalf of the member(s). Hwere the case is provden the union official shoudl meet all the costs involved.
-
Simon g - The fairness at work campaign was to cumulate on 20th Oct 2010 with the rally at the Vector arena and seek to gain widespread media coverage on the heels of the Labour party Conference and be the issue for Labour Day.
If you google 'Fairness at Work" most of the entries relate to the activity around August 2010 and there is little of the 20 Oct 2010 rally – it isn’t really covered – The Hobbit debacle has taken the wind out of its sales IMHO.
-
The Hobbit rally needs support.
Interesting that on Labour Day the CTU's role in this mess is likely to show how underhand and out of touch they have become.
A CTU campaign for fairness at work on the 20th October 2010 has not registered anywhere in the media.
The CTU message was - Support the campaign and give this government a clear message that we will not tolerate any attacks on workers' rights.
I wonder if those rights include the right to work and the right to be consulted - that is perhaps the mesasge that the CTU & NZAE - MEAA needs to be given.
-
There's the rub - See Nick Shand above - the former NZ EA choose to bypass democratic process so now democratic process is seeking to bypass them.
That is classic in the best and most wicked snese of he word.
-
Sacha, Bryer's community service has nothing to do with the Hobbit shambles.
I am interested, what is the problem that you have with a union executive being held to account to the membership?
-
People that want change to Employment Law are not necromancers who want the ECA 1991 and to set the zombie loose.
In response to Neil Morrison’s "having AE wander aimlessly around from one half-formulated position to another like none of this matters is, well, I can't think of the words."
The wrods that spring to my mind are a phuck up and a total shambles.
The law change needs to be made to stop union officers going feral - Making reference to Ross Mason's comments - the NZAE ask members to wait for a recommendation and then, without making the recommendation or consulting the members and getting a valid resolution, call for a blacklist.
There is no real consequence for an officer of a union who has not followed “process” or the law. There is limited provision for there to be consequences though they are not enforced, regardless of whether you have a Lab or Nat govt.
That lack of consequence in the wider sense can extend to and include a union running a loan scheme with no disclosure contrary to credit legislation, failing to file annual accounts under the Incorporated Societies Act, union officers being elected to office while being ineligible to stand for election or be a members of that union, union officers acting in bad faith and misleading members and also union executive initiating industrial action without a resolution of the membership which is what we have with the Hobbit.
I can't see that making the union executive more accountable at law to the membership and strengthening the position of the membership as the uppermost authority in the affairs of a union is releasing a zombie. It is a matter of stopping the executive from failing to consult with the members they represent and phucking things ups.
-
The post from Nick Shand and Peter Hacket are noteworthy.
Reading all of this, and more, the driver behind the blacklist is primarily the union (NZAE - MEAA) wanting to create leverage to secure a funding stream residuals and all (as they do in Australia and take a cut) for the benefit of themselves and the CTU to whom they would be affiliated to – the cost of providing such sterling support and sound advice.
Advancing this grab for leverage against the Hobbit as part of a laudable goal when there is no resolution from the membership and the union had no legal status fall well short of the union fulfilling its purpose. That purpose is to advance the interests of the members by consultation and acting on the resolutions of the membership.
NZEA lack of legal status up until 23 September 2009 and failing to file accounts is unreal though not without precedent - although it is against the law – the Registrar is quite lax in following such matters up even when prompted. Some unions in NZ have not filed returns for almost 20 years.
The rebranding from NZEA to MEAA – NZ stepping out of one constitution into another would need to follow the process in the original constitution and is likely not to have happened the way it should have.
The involvement of Oakley Moran (Peter Cranney) would stem from the fact that they also act for the CTU.
I would say Robyn Malcolm is at a loose end and has been to a degree used as a willing and witless pawn.
The Employment Law that needs to be reformed is to have union executives consult with and be able to be held accountable to the membership - industrial action needs to come from the members and not the executive as it is the members who bear the consequence.
I have mentioned the shortcomings in the ERA in more detail in earlier posts here.