Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92444 Case Number: LCR13909 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS P.L.C. - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Dispute concerning a new freelance agreement.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that it would not be unreasonable if the schedule
of minimum freelance rates were to be adjusted by the same
percentage increase as that granted to full-time staff in the
period since 1987. The Court therefore recommends that the rates
be adjusted by 7% with effect from the date of issue of this
recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92444 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13909
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS P.L.C.
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a new freelance agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union sought an increase in the freelance rates which
have been frozen since 1987. Prior to 1987, rates were
uniform across the 3 national newspapers in Dublin
(Independent, Times and Press) but the Irish Press withdrew
from central negotiations due to its financial difficulties.
No increases have applied to contributory rates although
permanent workers have received national increases.
2. The claim has been ongoing for some time but no progress
was made. It was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and conciliation conferences were held on 23rd January and
30th March, 1992. The Company pleaded inability to pay. The
Union's position is that freelance workers are being treated
unfairly in comparison to permanent workers.
3. The Union's claim was for a house agreement concerning the
application of all wage increases paid in the Company since
1987 to the freelance rates with full retrospection. A
negotiated solution was not possible and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court on 23rd July, 1992 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 3rd December, 1992 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim has been ongoing for some time and the Company
has made no effort to come to a negotiated settlement (details
supplied). The rates paid by other Dublin newspapers are now
substantially ahead of those paid by the Company.
2. Newspaper coverage and content is substantially dependent
on freelance material. The Union is aware of the difficulties
facing the Company but it cannot accept that the workers are
being treated reasonably or fairly. Freelance workers are in
a vulnerable position and a new house agreement providing for
minimum rates is essential to protect them from exploitation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The established and accepted method of paying freelance
workers is based on lineage (details supplied). The Company
pays extra for merit, originality and resourcefulness. The
concession of the Union's claim would mean vast increases in
areas where only the minimum payment is merited (details
supplied). It would also mean that the Company could not
afford to pay above the minimum in cases where this is
merited.
2. The cost of the claim to the Company would be #800,000 per
annum. The Company is operating in a difficult financial
climate with declining advertising revenue and circulation.
The Union's proposed formula would make costs prohibitive in
circumstances where the current payments to freelances are
very high. The Company is not in a position to sustain such
increases.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court
takes the view that it would not be unreasonable if the schedule
of minimum freelance rates were to be adjusted by the same
percentage increase as that granted to full-time staff in the
period since 1987. The Court therefore recommends that the rates
be adjusted by 7% with effect from the date of issue of this
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
22nd December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.