Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89532 Case Number: LCR12551 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute concerning the outputting of copy through the photosetter.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and visited the plant where
the system was demonstrated with the assistance of both parties,it
seems to the Court that as the present system is designed it is not
possible to separate the function of prioritisation from activation
of the output process. For this reason the Court does not consider
the Union's claim based solely on former practice can be
implemented in practice. On the question of the monitoring of
output it seems to the Court that as the present system stands the
Management's concern about the consequences of yet a further and
superfluous step in procedures is reasonable but the Court is not
qualified to say whether a terminal capable of the limited function
of monitoring output sought by the Union is capable of being
introduced and recommends that the parties meet with the technical
designers of the system to ascertain how this might be best
achieved. Pending the outcome of such meeting, the Court
recommends that Management ensure that overseers refrain from
any work proper to other operators.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89532 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12551
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS PLC
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the outputting of copy through the
photosetter.
BACKGROUND:
2. The various departments within the Newspaper send copy to the
case room where it is type set on computer terminals and proof
read. Finished copy is output from the overseer's terminal through
a photosetter (laser printer) for paste up into pages. Type setting
and proofreading is done by operators under the direction of an
overseer. The system is designed so that only the overseer's
terminal has the capacity to output copy to the photosetter and
this work is performed only by the overseer. This system was
introduced in April, 1988 as part of a restructuring programme
which will eventually include single keystroking (direct input).
Under the old "hot metal" system control of output was a physical
process. Final copy, when proof read was output by the operators,
under the instruction of the overseer. Overseers did not have a
"hands on" function in relation to the output of finished copy as
they do under the new system. The Union has disputed the
involvement of overseers in productive work since the introduction
of the new system. A number of local level meetings failed to make
any progress on the issue and it was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 9th August, 1988. A conciliation
conference took place on 1st September, 1988. The Union made the
following proposal:-
(i) That typesetters/keyboard operators should "output" the copy
under supervision.
(ii) That an additional designated terminal could be located
anywhere in the case room or adjacent to the laser copy machine
for this purpose.
(iii) Operators would continue to carry out their current duties
while a designated operator or any operator would output copy.
Management found this proposal to be unacceptable,stating that it
would lead to inefficiency. It was agreed at conciliation to refer
the matter to the Irish Productivity Centre for independent
assessment. The following terms of reference were agreed by the
parties with the I.P.C.:
"The I.P.C. will investigate the methods of operating and
controlling the existing computerised systems and photo
setting.
I.P.C. will examine:
(a) How the system operates at present and
(b) I.P.U. proposals.
I.P.C. will issue a technical report as to the most efficient
use of the system. Also on how relatively efficient the
system is, as proposed by the I.P.U.
I.P.C. will not be involved in industrial relations aspects -
these will be dealt with by the I.R.O. of the Labour Court."
In January, 1989 the I.P.C. issued its report, the conclusions
of which were as follows:-
"Under the existing technology output control and
prioritisation are simultaneous functions. The relative
efficiency of the system as proposed by the I.P.U., is not
measurable. It is the Assessor's opinion that the I.P.U.
proposal could impair the operation of the process and as
such would be less efficient than that of management. The
output of copy should remain as part of the overseers'
functions."
The Union rejected these conclusions and stated that the terms of
reference had been exceeded by the final sentence. "The output of
copy should remain as part of the overseers' functions." Management
agreed that it was not part of the I.P.C.'s brief to make such a
recommendation. However, management felt that the other
conclusions should stand. A series of further meetings took place
locally, with the I.P.C. and at conciliation but no agreement could
be reached. The matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour
Court on 31st July, 1989 . The hearing took place on 17th August,
1989. On 28th August the Court visited them Newspaper's premises
to view the system in operation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS :
3. 1. Under the new system overseers have an outputting function
and are therefore engaged in productive work. Under the old
"hot metal" system overseers did not do productive work. They
distributed copy, made decisions on priorities and had a
general overseeing function. Operators performed the
outputting of final copy. The Union sees this as a breach of
established practice which should be maintained.
2. When the new type setting system was introduced neither
the Union nor the Chapel representatives saw it in operation
prior to installation. Those systems that were seen involved
operators outputting work to the photosetter. This is also
the situation which exists elsewhere in the Irish newspaper
industry.
3. It is not the Union's intention to in any way constrain
the overseers from performing their duties as overseers or
prevent them from having a full knowledge of what stage copy
is at on the system. The only difficulty is with the fact
that they are performing what the Union sees as a productive
function proper to operators.
4. The independent assessor from the I.P.C. did not study
the Union's proposals in detail. It was not possible for him
to do so as the operators' terminals were never given the
facility to output final copy. The Union considers that the
assessor in his report exceeded his brief. This has been
accepted by management.
5. The overseers' terminals have all the facilities proper
to productive work available to them e.g. correcting text
transposing paragraphs etc.. Some of these functions are not
available on the operators' terminals. Management has stated
that no such work will be performed by overseers but, given
that the computer facilities are allocated as they are, the
Union is not satisfied with this commitment.
6. An agreement on direct input will have to be drawn up in
the near future. It will be necessary under the direct input
system for the Chapel to be able to monitor what copy is
passing through the system. At present it is only possible
to do this at the overseers' terminals. Therefore, it will be
necessary to alter the system in this regard in order to
reach agreement on direct input.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There now exists a radically changed environment which
requires a control which is most effectively and efficiently
managed by the case room overseer. The control of output
under the old "hot metal" system was a physical process.
Under the new system control of output and allocating
priority to copy are simultaneous functions.
2. The control and prioritisation of output in the caseroom
are the unquestioned responsibility of the overseer,
irrespective of the system in operation. To place an extra
link or function in the system by having the overseer
instruct somebody else to activate the output command is
manifestly less efficient. It is particularly so when the
command key is available on the overseer's terminal. For
these reasons the Union's proposal has been rejected by
Management.
3. Comparisons with the caserooms in other newspapers are
not valid as these companies do not have the advanced
integrated Front End System which is in operation in
Independent House.
4 . The technical report issued by the Irish Productivity
Centre clearly endorsed the Company's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and visited the plant where
the system was demonstrated with the assistance of both parties,it
seems to the Court that as the present system is designed it is not
possible to separate the function of prioritisation from activation
of the output process. For this reason the Court does not consider
the Union's claim based solely on former practice can be
implemented in practice. On the question of the monitoring of
output it seems to the Court that as the present system stands the
Management's concern about the consequences of yet a further and
superfluous step in procedures is reasonable but the Court is not
qualified to say whether a terminal capable of the limited function
of monitoring output sought by the Union is capable of being
introduced and recommends that the parties meet with the technical
designers of the system to ascertain how this might be best
achieved. Pending the outcome of such meeting, the Court
recommends that Management ensure that overseers refrain from
any work proper to other operators.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
14th September, 1989.
Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.