The Maritime Union on Friday made public its counter-offer to the port management in an effort to get some movement on the long-running dispute, which has seen both Maersk Line and Fonterra shift business away from Auckland.
Union president Garry Parsloe said the offer was made public to counteract misinformation that had been circulated in the public domain.
"This offer is a serious offer, which shows very clearly this issue is not about wages. It is about preserving job security for workers with all the benefits that has for families and the community."
It was unusual for the union to engage in negotiations in public but port management had consistently circulated incorrect material to the media and hostile political interests, he said.
The union had to ensure its position was not misrepresented.
"The union is ready and waiting to continue negotiations as soon as senior management have returned from their summer holidays," Mr Parsloe said.
The main points of the union offer to Ports of Auckland management included:
Collective agreement
• A realistic percentage increase (suggestion of 2.5% for a six-month term), with the current collective agreement and all terms and conditions including rosters rolled over for the term of the agreement.
• The parties agree to use the Tracc methodology to investigate any changes that can be agreed to improve productivity and rosters over the six-month settlement period. This can include other issues such as the sunset clause.
• The company will not contract out during the term of the agreement.
• The union will agree to a drug and alcohol policy that is based on saliva testing in line with its "Not at work mate" policy.
• Casual labour will not be used to drive the machinery.
Ports of Auckland chief executive Tony Gibson said the move by Fonterra to divert its export shipments from Auckland to other ports from the end of January until further notice was directly related to the threat of ongoing strike action.
With the union threatening further action, it was inevitable that customers would look for alternatives and contingencies. Shippers needed certainty and reliable service.
Noting that the port had not had any response from the union to its last three offers, Mr Gibson said it was now time for action, not words.
"The port is willing to continue mediation with Munz but only when we receive a formal response to our latest offer - the ninth since negotiations began in August."
Following Fonterra's decision, Mr Gibson had advised the union that the port had given its best and final offer.
It included a "generous" 10% rise on hourly rates, performance bonuses of up to 20% on hourly rates and the retention of existing benefits and entitlements in return for a new roster system that would provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance, he said.
Mr Parsloe claimed Fonterra's decision to export from the Port of Tauranga and Port of Napier, instead of Auckland, had nothing to do with industrial action but part of a plan devised in advance.
Fonterra's cargo was likely to be handled by union members, wherever it left the country.
"Fonterra used to put cargo out of New Plymouth but then decided to use rail to ship it through Auckland, and then Tauranga.
"Now they've made the decision to move out of Auckland. Tauranga can't handle it all and so they'll send it down to Napier.
"That's good news for Hawkes Bay and for our members at the Port of Napier."
Mr Parsloe said shipping companies did not decide overnight to switch ports but, rather, they looked at the economics of where they could achieve the best deal.
"There's always a commercial reason, cheaper port and container rates."
Union workers were looking for a lower pay rise of about 2.5%, as opposed to the Port of Auckland's offer of a 10%, in order to secure permanent long-term work, he said.
