Judge slaps employer for 'anti-collectivist' policy

By MATHEW DEARNALEY

Insurer AMI has failed in an unusual courtroom bid to stifle criticism of its industrial relations tactics - and been dealt a judicial reprimand for discriminating against unionists.

Chief Judge Tom Goddard said in an Employment Court decision that the company adopted a deliberate policy of whittling away union influence by offering slightly superior terms to staff who shunned collective bargaining.

This included an immediate pay rise for signing individual contracts before negotiations began with the finance workers' union Finsec, and not backdating collective deals.

"The explanation that this did not attack union members is hollow and misconceived - it was an anti-collectivist policy," Judge Goddard said in dismissing what he called an entirely novel case against Finsec.

AMI sued against what it alleged were offensive and inaccurate union publications sent to staff towards the end of pay negotiations last year.

These alleged that conditions went "down the tubes" after a company campaign against union membership under the old Employment Contracts Act.

They said a resulting membership level of about 40 per cent reduced negotiating power, leading to a below-par pay settlement. The language was toned down slightly from the draft of an earlier leaflet, from which the union agreed under company pressure to delete derogatory remarks such as a claim that AMI staff were "Cinderellas" of the unionised finance sector.

But the company said the updates were misleading and a breach of good faith, essentially a restatement of material it claimed the union agreed would not be published at any time.

Union organiser Geraldine Molloy said she made the changes after the company refused to negotiate otherwise, but she denied agreeing to be silenced once bargaining was over.

Company executive Barry Mitchell told the court he believed this was implicit in a discussion with Ms Molloy, but Judge Goddard said AMI fell short of proving its allegation.

He said the union was most unlikely to have surrendered its freedom of expression forever as it was under a duty to scrutinise the employer's conduct and express critical views to members, if it saw fit.

He rejected claims that Finsec breached good faith obligations and a pre-bargaining agreement on communications during pay talks. The union had a right to make reasonably held statements about AMI, although this was not to say these were correct.

AMI sought damages of $50,000 against the union, but the judge struck these out in an earlier decision, while leaving two other causes of action which he has now dismissed as well.

Ms Molloy told the Herald the company warned five members of a union council of AMI staff that they risked penalties of $5000 each for putting their names to the updates.

Company chief executive John Balmforth said yesterday that the company vehemently denied threatening anyone and it issued proceedings solely against the union after being told council members had not known about the updates

It did so as it believed the union was undermining its relationship with staff, on which it placed a very high value.