Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8919 Case Number: AD8917 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST384/88 concerning the right to have first sight of books.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the method of handling incoming
material does not interfere with or limit the editorial discretion
of the Literary Editor. The Court is further of the opinion that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and supplementary
proposals of the 5th of October are the best means of overcoming
practical difficulties which arise and as such should be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8919 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST384/88 concerning the right to have first
sight of books.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned joined the Company in 1972 as a
specialist writer. In November, 1986, he was appointed Literary
Editor. In early 1988 a dispute arose between the worker and the
Editor of the newspaper over books coming into the newspaper. The
Editor maintained that he should have first sight of all books as
has been the practice in the newspaper, while the worker
maintained that this was interfering with his duties. The matter
was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the dispute
and in Recommendation ST38/88 recommended as follows:-
"In my view it is hardly ever permissible to open the
personal mail of another person. However the mail
should be clearly marked "Personal/Private and/or
confidential" to qualify for such protection. It would
be foolish to ignore the difficulties which can arise
in large volume operations such as newspaper offices,
where "dating" of material is measured in hours rather
than in days. There is the added complication of the
status of personal mail delivered to a business only
address. Neither can one ignore the unique powers
which an Editor can exercise in the day to day
operations of a newspaper. Having regard to these and
the particular circumstances of this case I recommend
as follows:-
1. That the Claimant is recognised by the Editor and
Company as holding the position of "Literary
Editor".
2. That personal mail, clearly identified as such
should not be opened save in the presence of the
addressee.
3. That the Claimant accepts the Editor's invitation,
given at the investigation to attend at the weekly
editorial conference with the Editor and senior
staff.
4. That the Claimant should inform his reviewers to
send all personal observations, notes, letters etc.
under separate cover to his home, or to his office
clearly marked "Private/Personal/Confidential".
5. That the Claimant accepts fully, without
reservation or equivocation, the Union's universal
policy, in relation to Editorial prerogatives and
their reasonable application by the Editor.
"In conclusion I might add that I was impressed by the
total professionalism exhibited by both sides and their
commitment to their industry.
The intent of this recommendation is not to apportion
blame, or nominate a winner or loser in this dispute.
The intention is that the parties can commence a new
and more enlightened approach to their respective
roles, and in circumstances where they may overlap,
that each will bring a greater measure of understanding
than has existed heretofore."
This Recommendation was accepted by the Company but was rejected
by the worker concerned. Subsequently the Union put forward the
following proposals:-
"Proposals for settlement of dispute between NUJ and
Independent newspapers in the matter of running of the
books page in the Irish Independent:-
1. The Literary Editor will be made aware of, and
invited to the weekly features conference in the
Editor's office each Friday evening at 6 p.m.
2. The Literary Editor will inform the Editor
immediately he orders a book for review. In doing
so he will give a brief outline of what the subject
matter of the book is, as well as author, title,
publisher, publication date, and date of intended
use.
If, at that stage, the Editor decides that he would
prefer to use the book for feature material, he
will immediately so inform the Literary Editor.
If the Editor does not so inform the Literary
Editor at that stage, he will ensure that
immediately the book in question arrives, it is
passed on to the Literary Editor.
If the book is required for both feature work and
review, two copies can be ordered in order to avoid
any conflict.
3. When the Editor has picked books for feature work,
he will immediately pass on the remainder to the
Literary Editor, with a note of what books have
been taken for feature work.
4. The Editor will ensure that all post, other than
books, addressed to the Literary Editor, either by
name or by title, whether marked personal or
otherwise, will go directly to the Literary Editor.
The Company indicated that these proposals would be acceptable to
it. However, the worker rejected the proposals and on 4th
January, 1989 the Union, on his behalf, submitted an appeal
against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour
Court. The Court heard the appeal on 3rd February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The responsibilities of a Literary Editor, as practised
in all other national newspapers and in the U.K., including
the sister papers the Evening Herald and Sunday Independent,
are to study publishers' catalogues and requisition selected
books for review, to commission reviewers in advance to ensure
the minimum of delays following the arrival of such books at
the office and to distribute books to various departments
within the newspaper depending on content. However, the
Editor of the Irish Independent has given instructions that
all books and mail addressed to the Literary Editor are to be
delivered to his office for opening. The Editor, having made
a selection of what he wants for other areas, deposits the
remainder on the floor for collection by the Literary Editor.
This procedure has caused endless difficulties and led to
embarrassing situations for the Literary Editor.
2. The difficulties arising from the system operated by the
Editor of the Irish Independent are undermining the careful
planning made through the year by the Literary Editor. In
fact it is impossible for any Literary Editor to operate a
proper system of reviewing books in these circumstances.
There is no recognition of the work and purpose which arranged
for the arrival of the books at the paper in the first place.
3. The Union has sought repeatedly to arrive at a sensible
arrangement which would allow the Literary Editor to see the
books as they come in for review and give the Editor immediate
access to any book in which he expressed an interest.
However, all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed.
4. Both the Union and the worker concerned fully accept
there are some books which require different treatment to a
straight review and are best used as a basis for a feature.
Such books are generally of no interest to the Literary
Editor. There is no problem in editorial executives or heads
of departments making independent contact with publishers for
copies of such books. Indeed, the Literary Editor has
attempted to restrict books arriving at the paper to those in
which he has shown specific interest.
5. The Union is simply seeking that the Literary Editor of
the Irish Independent is allowed to do the job for which he
was appointed in the manner established by custom and practice
in the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Editor's prerogative to decide the editorial
content of the paper. In this context the Editor requires
first sight of all books submitted to the Company. Books
provide a valuable source of material for features, lifestyle
pages, sports etc. and cannot be viewed in the narrower
perspective of being only books page material.
2. Irrespective of arrangements existing in other
newspapers, the procedures operating in the Irish Independent
in relation to incoming books have been custom and practice
for over a decade and operated under the previous editor
(details supplied). The worker was advised of and accepted
these procedures on his appointment in November 1986.
3. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair and
reasonable and provided a means for a "new and more
enlightened approach to their respective roles".
4. The Editor acknowledges that the worker is an excellent
Literary Editor and is regarded as an extremely well informed
writer on politics and the arts. However, the Editor would
not, and does not, expect the Literary Editor to take the
wider perspective of the paper as a whole in the performance
of his duties.
5. With regard to the allegation that personal mail was
being opened, this is denied by the Editor. However, in order
to prevent such an occurrence he offered to write to all
publishers informing them to send all books directly to the
Editor. This was not acceptable to the worker.
6. The Company considered the proposals put forward by the
Union to be within the spirit of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and indicated that they would be acceptable.
However, they were rejected by the worker.
7. There are two editorial conferences a day and one
features conference on a Friday. If the worker would
regularly attend one of these the Editor could inform him of
the situation regarding any books that had come in.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the method of handling incoming
material does not interfere with or limit the editorial discretion
of the Literary Editor. The Court is further of the opinion that
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and supplementary
proposals of the 5th of October are the best means of overcoming
practical difficulties which arise and as such should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
24th February, 1989 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman