BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Limited thinking by union officials put their members out of work claimed Mr Chris

Gollins in a commentary broadcast on More FM at 7.35am on 1 December 1993.

Referring specifically to the Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union which

represented workers at the Mitsubishi Motors assembly plant, he accused the Union

of out-moded and stupid thinking.

The Union Secretary, Mr Graeme Clarke, complained to Capital FM Ltd that the

comments were both inaccurate and ill-informed. He said that they overlooked the

Union's responsibility to ensure a fair day's work and its contribution to increased

productivity.

Pointing out that Mr Gollins presented his personal view and, over time, balance was

achieved in his comments, Capital FM declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied

with the broadcaster's response, Mr Clarke on the Union's behalf referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read a transcript of the broadcast complained

about and the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

An accusation that trade unions put their members out of work because of

unreasonable demands to employers was made by commentator Chris Gollins on

More FM on 1 December 1993. Referring specifically to the Manufacturing and

Construction Workers Union which represented workers at the Mitsubishi Motors

assembly plant in Porirua, Mr Gollins suggested that Union Secretary Graeme Clarke

should accept the employer's reasonable offer.

Mr Clarke complained to More FM that the inaccurate and unbalanced comments

amounted to "right wing propaganda". Because of the changes in the motor industry

in recent years - approved by the Union, he said that productivity had increased

tremendously. However, wages had fallen below the average level which was one of

the reasons for the current Union action. He also objected to the broadcast

description that he was a "Union heavy".

More FM did not respond until May 1994, explaining that at the time Mr Clarke's

letter of complaint did not indicate that a response was called for. It argued that Mr

Gollins' commentaries, over time, were balanced and pointed out that Mitsubishi

Motors has been criticised on another occasion about the safety standards in New

Zealand assembled vehicles. It wrote:

The Gollins' Report is not current affairs. It is one person's view, frequently

controversial and has been established in the Wellington market since 1979.

When Mr Clarke referred the Union's complaint to the Authority, he argued that a

correction and apology were necessary in view of the inaccuracies in the broadcast.

As neither the complainant nor the broadcaster referred to the broadcasting standards

under which the complaint had been made or assessed, the Authority's first task was

to determine which were the appropriate standards. In reaching its decision on this

point, the Authority took into account the nature of this broadcast. As the regular

commentary could not be described as news or current affairs, the Authority decided

that the accuracy requirement in standard R1 was inapplicable as it is confined

explicitly to such material.

It also believed that standard R9 was inappropriate which, although it refers to

balance, impartiality and fairness, is obviously applicable to current affairs items

when an issue is being explored and explained to the listener. It is not, the Authority

decided, relevant to an editorial or an opinion piece where the commentator is

unambiguously expressing an opinion.

In nominating the following standards, the Authority took into account the

complainant's concerns about the item's alleged inaccuracies. It was of the view that

the reference to factual errors in standard R12, while not prohibiting the explicit

expression of strongly held views by a commentator, was not confined to news or

current affairs and would thus ensure that any views advanced by way of commentary

were based on fact rather than mere myth or prejudice.

As a result, the Authority decided that standards R4, R5 and R12 were apposite.

They require broadcasters.

R4   To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own views.

R5   To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

R12  To correct factual errors speedily and with similar prominence to the

offending broadcast or broadcasts.

Although ruling that standard R1 did not apply in this case, the Authority believed

that any gross inaccuracy, in addition to being a breach of standard R12, could well be

in breach of standard R5. However, it considered that neither standard had been

contravened in the present situation. In his commentary, Mr Gollins presented his

opinion about certain matters – on this occasion the Union demands at Mitsubishi

Motors. It was not presented as a documentary about the history of the plant or the

Union but was Mr Gollins' opinion on the current debate. Had he explored the issues

further, he may well have changed his opinion about the parties' respective stances.

However, an opinion was presented which was neither outrageous nor grossly

inaccurate and, consequently, did not justify the conclusion that it was unfair.

The Authority next examined the comment that Mr Clarke was a "union heavy". It

accepted that the comment was not intended as a literal observation on Mr Clarke's

build but in its metaphorical sense. In that sense, the Authority believed that it

referred to an important and influential person but that it also contained negative

connotations. Despite the critical aspects of the term, the Authority did not consider

that it was a factual error justifying correction or that in the context of the item overall

it was sufficiently unfair to justify a decision that standard R5 had been breached.

In determining the complaint, the Authority noted that standard R4 accepts the right

of individuals to express their opinions. This standard allows for explicit editorial

comment - which may well be controversial – but, to comply with standard R 12, it

must not contain factual inaccuracies. The Authority accepted that the comment

broadcast on this occasion did not contravene the standards as it was based

substantially on fact rather than fiction.

For the reasons given above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Mr Clarke, as Union Secretary, complained to the broadcaster on the day that the item

was broadcast – 1 December 1993. He reported to the Authority that he understood

that the broadcaster would respond on receipt of a formal letter of complaint.

However, a reply was not received to the letter of complaint or to a reminder sent in

March 1994. In May, the broadcaster responded to a hand delivered copy of the

complaint. The broadcaster now claims that the letter received in December did not

indicate that a reply was expected.

The Authority is dissatisfied with More FM's lack of response to the original

complaint. The Authority does not have the jurisdiction to sanction a broadcaster

directly for a lack of response but can draw it to the attention of the Ministry of

Commerce which has administrative responsibility for the Broadcasting Act. The

Authority will refer such a matter to the Ministry if it receives another complaint

involving More FM's unjustified failure to respond to a formal complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
29 September 1994

Appendix

Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union Inc's Complaint to Capital FM Limited

In a letter dated 1 December 1993, the General Secretary (Mr Graeme Clarke) of the

Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union Inc complained to Capital FM Ltd

about the commentary broadcast by Mr Chris Gollins on More FM at 7.35am that

morning.

Advising that a transcript of Mr Gollins' views was being circulated by the

management of Mitsubishi Motors Ltd, Mr Clarke reported that many workers there

were angry at the inaccurate and ill-informed nature of the remarks.

The complaint focussed on three specific matters. First, Mr Clarke said that Mr

Gollins rejected the concept of a fair day's work as a matter for inclusion in an

employment contract. Mr Clarke added that Mitsubishi now had relented in its

opposition to retaining this concept in the contract. Its absence in Japan resulted in

unpaid overtime, higher stress levels and more work-related accidents.

Secondly, Mr Gollins blamed union stupidity and its opposition to increased

productivity for job losses in the motor industry. That was inaccurate as

productivity had increased in the motor industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed,

increasing output was the major reason for the decline of the number of jobs in the

industry. Mr Clarke explained the changes which had led to increased productivity

and argued:

The idea that productivity should continually increase and that at best workers

get a temporary reward for that, is Neanderthal economics. If it had applied

since the beginning of time the servants would still be living in caves and the

masters wallowing in obscene luxury.

Recent declines in productivity, he added, related to market issues and had nothing to

do with unions. Mr Gollins appeared to support the right of an employer to pick and

choose which workers were made redundant and that process, Mr Clarke argued,

resulted in a lack of equity. Mr Clarke concluded on this point:

The long term future of the New Zealand motor industry is a matter that will

be decided by Government policy, not the activities of the unions. In the

Wellington motor industry we have stood up for ourselves. Over the years we

have got wage increases that are better than average. In spite of this, our stake

in the future of the motor industry is now minimal. In 1989 the bottom rated

worker in the motor assembly industry got the average wage. Today we need

a 53% pay rise to get back to that level.

Thirdly, he objected to Mr Gollins' description of him as a "union heavy", explaining

that he was 6 feet 1 inch and weighed 80 kilos - which was not overweight.

Mr Clarke concluded:

Our members believe that your radio station should offer some balance in its

commentary that is currently the monopoly of Mr Gollins. His research is so

poor that the result that comes out is in some instances nothing more or less

than right-wing propaganda.

Capital FM's Response to the Formal Complaint

The broadcaster's Operation's Manager (Mr Kevin White) replied in a letter dated 17

May 1994. On the basis that the letter did not indicate that a reply was expected, a

response had not been sent earlier.

Pointing out that the criticism about the lack of balance applied to one programme

only, Mr White maintained that adequate balance was achieved over the course of a

year. For example, Mitsubishi Motors had been very critical of Mr Gollins when he

commented about the safety standards in New Zealand assembled vehicles.

Accusations of "right-wing propaganda", he continued, were not correct when

reviewing the comments broadcast over a period of time.

The letter concluded:

The Gollins' Report is not current affairs. It is one person's view, frequently

controversial and has been established in the Wellington market since 1979.

The Union's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response in a fax dated 15 June 1994 on the

Union's behalf Mr Clarke referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Clarke recalled that he had spoken to Mr White of More FM on 1 December last

year and had sought a correction. Mr White had promised to get back to him after

talking to Mr Gollins but had not done so. Mr Clarke added that he had been advised

that no one at More FM could recall the matter when he followed it up earlier this

year and, finally, it had been necessary to deliver a copy of the 1 December letter to

the broadcaster.

Now that a written reply had been received, Mr Clarke considered it to be

unsatisfactory as it neither contained an apology nor acknowledged that the facts were

wrong. He wrote:

We believe that where Stations such as More FM allow radio to be used to

shape public opinion they should require that their commentator checks the

facts on which their commentary is based, and when they get it wrong they

should apologise like everyone else.

Capital FM's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral. Its

letter is dated 15 June 1994 and Capital FM's reply, 20 June. The broadcaster was

unable to meet the Authority's request for a tape in view of the time which had

elapsed since the broadcast but a full transcript of the broadcast was enclosed which

the broadcaster said, explained the context of the comments.

Capital FM repeated its comment to the Union that Mr Gollins, who had been

broadcasting in Wellington for 15 years, was frequently controversial but, over time,

was balanced. It concluded:

Above all, however, is our contention that the programme is one person's view

of aspects of living in Wellington and New Zealand.

The Union's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked to comment briefly on Capital FM's reply, the Union reported, in a

telephone call on 28 July, that it had no further comment to make.