Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91170 Case Number: LCR13281 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION (I.P.U. |
Dispute concerning contributed copy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that the Union's acceptance of the settlement
terms of July last was qualified to the extent that the matter of
"contributed copy" was left open for further discussion. It is
now noted that the Union has further refined its position to the
issue of "hard copy".
Such copy represents a very small proportion of the total contents
of the paper, which may grow even smaller in the course of time.
It appears to the Court that the Union's claim that it alone
should set all such copy is contrary to the fundamental principles
embodied in the Supplemental Agreements and the Court would not
recommend concession of that claim.
On the other hand the Court does have sympathy with these Union
members who see this work which was formerly exclusively theirs,
and which has not been ended by technological change, being
distributed across the work force whilst IPU numbers are
drastically reduced, and where in fact the impact of the agreement
could be taken as to positively exclude them from the task.
From its own observation the Court does not consider that the
handling of this material by the IPU is detrimental to the
efficiency of the present operation.
The Court recommends that until the operational arrangements as
envisaged in the Supplemental Agreements are fully in place and
the level of competence of the other staff members involved is
satisfactory, the Management should use to the fullest the
particular skill of the workers concerned in dealing with such
material.
Thereafter when the new arrangements are fully in place all
qualified workers should deal with this copy as required to
achieve the greatest efficiency of the system. The Court further
recommends that IPU members should be given the minor additional
training required to enable them to do so.
Finally, insofar as the issue involves a transfer of work rather
than its elimination the Court recommends that management should
agree to increase its proposed eventual manning of IPU staff from
32 to 35.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91170 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13281
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946, SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
and
IRISH PRINT UNION (I.P.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning contributed copy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the input of contributed copy by copy
takers (who are members of other unions) directly into the
computer system. The Union claims that the work is appropriate to
its members and has been done by them for many years. The Company
stated that it is operating in accordance with the Supplemental
Agreement (details supplied to the Court) which was produced after
numerous discussions between Management I.C.T.U. and the Unions at
Irish Press Newspapers Limited and provided for radical changes in
work practices. The Company claims that in a subsequent Labour
Court Recommendation (L.C.R. 12932) the Court endorsed the
Company's action vis a vis "radical changes in work practices."
The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court in February, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on
the 14th February, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th February, 1991. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 15th and 16th February,
1991. At the hearing the Union set out its claim as follows:
(1) Copy received over the telephone by copytakers should be
set by I.P.U. members.
(2) Copy received over the counter or by post, whether
manuscript, typescript or faxed, for news, sports or
feature pages, should be set by I.P.U. members.
During the hearing the Union modified its position as
follows:-
"With regard to Point 1 of our claim, we note that no
reference has been made to it. However, in the
interests of reaching a resolution to the problems
before as, we are prepared to drop this point subject
to agreement being reached on Point 2."
The Company rejected the Union's amended proposal. A
further Court hearing was held on the 28th March, 1991.
The Court visited the Company's premises and inspected
the work of the claimants on the 25th April, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. Bearing in mind that the Union had rejected the
Supplemental Agreement, L.C.R. 12932, and the I.C.T.U.
Agreement it must be obvious that the Company's letter of 22nd
July, 1990 had a major influence on the Union's finally
accepting the aforementioned documents. Paragraph 2 of the
letter states "contributed copy shall be a matter for local
discussion under the relevant clause of the I.C.T.U.
Agreement. The relevant clause reads "local negotiations - It
is recognised that the preceding paragraph does not preclude
negotiations at local level on specific issues." There were
no negotiations at local level.
2. Following the July acceptance, the normal practice
continued - the copytakers took the copy over the telephone
and it was then given to I.P.U. members to set as "hard copy."
However after some months the Union became aware that the
copytakers were taking copy over the telephone and typing it,
then re-keying it into the system. The Union raised the
matter with Management in November, 1990, and also the fact
that copytakers were being given "hard copy" by the editors
for keying into the system. The Union insisted on this copy
being re-set.
3. The Union completely rejects the Company's contention that
under the Supplemental Agreement it has the right to let any
worker in the news and editorial departments key into the
system. The Union is fully aware of the effect direct input
will have on the workers concerned, yet the Union initiated
discussions with Management as it saw the orderly introduction
of direct input as the way forward.
4. While accepting that single keystroking would decimate the
Union's membership, it felt that redeployment and an early
retirement/voluntary redundancy package, coupled with
agreement that there would be no compulsory redundancies, was
in the best interests of all concerned. The Union, however,
never envisaged or will it accept that the single keystroking
of "hard copy" could be taken away from its members and given
as new work to people who had never been involved in it
before.
5. The Union would ask the Court to recommend in favour of
the position outlined. It has received harsh criticism from
some members for amending its proposal and it was suggested by
some members that it revert to the original claim. However,
the Union feels that it should stick to its last position in
an effort to be realistic and to show an earnest desire to
have this problem resolved in a fair and equitable manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In its Recommendation L.C.R. 12932 dated June 27, 1990,
the Labour Court said that it concurred with the view that
continued publication of the Company's newspapers "as
presently produced is not commercially viable." The Court
added "To reverse this undoubted decline, Management, inter
alia, is proposing the radical changes in work practices and
conditions which are incorporated in the Supplemental
Agreements." With regard to the I.P.U. the Recommendation
stated clearly: "The Court therefore recommends that the
Supplemental Agreement be accepted on the basis of the amended
redundancy proposals."
2. The necessity for the changes recommended by the Court is
as real today as it was last summer. Indeed the necessity is
greater since the Company has committed very substantial
financial resources in carrying out its obligations under the
Supplemental Agreement. Its ability to sustain those
commitments is entirely dependent on the Company's capacity to
manage change and develop its newspapers.
3. Direct input of contributed copy was clearly provided for
in the I.P.U. Supplemental Agreement. Clauses 1 and 2 of the
Supplemental Agreement with the I.P.U. refers, in particular.
"(1) News and Editorial Matter :
All news and editorial material will be inputted
directly into the computer system by employees of the
News and Editorial Department, and will be edited and
prepared in electronic form (with typesetting
instructions and formats for the computer) by such
employees. Wire Service syndicated matter, and other
purchased news and editorial matter (including
freelance, stringer and correspondence material) may be
received directly into the computer from outside
sources, and will be similarly edited and prepared in
electronic form by employees of the News and Editorial
Department. All such material, when inputted directly
into the computer system, or prepared and developed in
electronic form, by News and Editorial Department
employees, will be accepted by the Caseroom in such form
without rekeyboarding.
(2) Classified Ads :
Classified ads. will be inputted directly into the
computer system (with typesetting instruction and
formats for the computer) by employees of the
Advertising Department, and will be accepted by the
Caseroom in electronic form without rekeyboarding."
This agreement was discussed at length in the Court and
acceptance of same formed a key part of the Labour Court
Recommendation 12932 and the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions/Irish Press Newspapers Limited Agreement of July 19,
1990."
4. In addition to the Agreements with the I.P.U. the Company
concluded parallel Agreements with the National Union of
Journalists and S.I.P.T.U. No. 2 Branch to provide for the
direct input of all copy. A letter of clarification was
issued to the I. P. U. following discussions on July 22, 1990.
This letter refers to "local discussions" in relation to
contributed copy under the relevant Clause of the Irish
Congress of Trade Unions Agreement. These discussions were
necessary to facilitate the smooth transition from the
previous arrangements to full direct entry, including
contributed copy, as increasing use was made of the existing
systems in editorial and classified, and as the number of
Caseroom employees was scaled down to 32, the agreed Caseroom
manning level by the end of the transition period. To this
end a number of meetings took place between the Caseroom
Manager (the local Department Head) and the Chapel Officers as
increasing amounts of copy were input directly in the
Editorial Departments. There was never any question of the
"local discussions" leading to or signifying a re-negotiation
of any aspect of the Supplemental Agreement, including the
provision for direct entry of contributed copy.
5. The Company requests the Court to recognise that the issue
of input of copy was fully provided for in the Agreements with
the I.P.U. referred to above including Labour Court
Recommendation 12932. This position is reinforced by parallel
agreements with the No. 2 Branch of S.I.P.T.U. and the N.U.J.
Any alteration in the I.P.U. Agreement would immediately and
very seriously impact on these other Agreements with
completely unforeseen consequences. The Company requests the
Court to endorse the existing Agreements as the only basis to
ensure the long term prosperity of the Irish Press Newspapers
Limited.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that the Union's acceptance of the settlement
terms of July last was qualified to the extent that the matter of
"contributed copy" was left open for further discussion. It is
now noted that the Union has further refined its position to the
issue of "hard copy".
Such copy represents a very small proportion of the total contents
of the paper, which may grow even smaller in the course of time.
It appears to the Court that the Union's claim that it alone
should set all such copy is contrary to the fundamental principles
embodied in the Supplemental Agreements and the Court would not
recommend concession of that claim.
On the other hand the Court does have sympathy with these Union
members who see this work which was formerly exclusively theirs,
and which has not been ended by technological change, being
distributed across the work force whilst IPU numbers are
drastically reduced, and where in fact the impact of the agreement
could be taken as to positively exclude them from the task.
From its own observation the Court does not consider that the
handling of this material by the IPU is detrimental to the
efficiency of the present operation.
The Court recommends that until the operational arrangements as
envisaged in the Supplemental Agreements are fully in place and
the level of competence of the other staff members involved is
satisfactory, the Management should use to the fullest the
particular skill of the workers concerned in dealing with such
material.
Thereafter when the new arrangements are fully in place all
qualified workers should deal with this copy as required to
achieve the greatest efficiency of the system. The Court further
recommends that IPU members should be given the minor additional
training required to enable them to do so.
Finally, insofar as the issue involves a transfer of work rather
than its elimination the Court recommends that management should
agree to increase its proposed eventual manning of IPU staff from
32 to 35.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
13th May, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.