Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93135 Case Number: AD9320 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 278/92 concerning a claim by 2 freelance journalists for permanent positions with the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court gave careful consideration to the written and oral
submissions of the parties.
It is the view of the Court that, given the agreements in
operation between the parties and the right of management to
decide on appointments, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is in the main correct.
The Court, however, does believe that there is a need for a review
by the parties of the arrangements covering the employment of
freelance journalists with particular reference to the question
whether an appointment to the permanent staff for this category of
worker should be available by reference to their length of
service.
The Court's finding therefore is that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand with the above amendment.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
The Court wishes also to express a view that for the future rates
of pay for these freelance journalists should be subject to the
same pro-rata increases as apply to permanent journalists.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93135 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST
278/92 concerning a claim by 2 freelance journalists for permanent
positions with the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The journalists have 7.50 and 8 years service respectively,
on a non-permanent freelance basis. They are seeking
permanent positions with the Company.
2. The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. An investigation was held
on 2nd December, 1992 and a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation issued as follows on 15th January, 1993.
"I recommend that the claim for permanent employment for
the two claimants fails. I further recommend that the
Company opens up the V.H.I. Group Scheme to the
claimants and their colleagues of similar standing. I
also recommend that the Company sympathetically examines
the present holiday entitlements with a view to
progressively closing the gap between the two
entitlements. This could be done in the context of
possible discussions arising from the adoption by the
Union of the suggestion in (3) above".
3. The Recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, by the
Union by letter dated 15th February, 1993. The Labour Court
heard the appeal on 15th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Non-staff journalists at the Company have inferior salary
and conditions of employment to permanent journalist (details
supplied). The Company treat the journalist as "casuals" and
yet they are not classed as self-employed by the Revenue
Commissioners. The Company has enjoyed the workers full-time
labour for some time at a significant cost saving.
2. The journalists are effectively staff members of the
Company. They will not be offered work by the Company's
competitors as they are perceived as being staff of the
Company. The workers are employed by the Company as
specialists (details supplied). The Company has shown no
reluctance to creating permanent specialist posts for the
purposes of specialist tasks (details supplied).
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is being appealed
on the grounds of social justice as the central issues remain
unresolved. The Company must honour its clear obligation to
both journalists who have been valuable assets to the Company.
The journalists have the necessary qualifications and
experience for permanent positions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Freelance journalism is an integral part of the way the
media industry operates generally. The Company uses up to 30
freelance shifts per week, which involves up to a dozen
freelance journalists. The Company's rate is substantially
more than most of it competitors (details supplied).
2. The Company recently held a competition for 2 permanent
positions and 2 freelance journalists were appointed. While
the 2 journalists involved with the claim were not successful
in these interviews, they are well regarded by the Company in
their specialist areas. However, full-time appointments
require a broader approach in order to be of continuing
editorial benefit.
3. The Company has proposed the offering of individual
contracts to the two workers. The contract would enhance the
standing of the journalists and provide a larger degree of
security. The Union rejected the proposal. The Company must
retain the right to decide on the suitability and level of
qualification of all staff.
DECISION:
5. The Court gave careful consideration to the written and oral
submissions of the parties.
It is the view of the Court that, given the agreements in
operation between the parties and the right of management to
decide on appointments, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is in the main correct.
The Court, however, does believe that there is a need for a review
by the parties of the arrangements covering the employment of
freelance journalists with particular reference to the question
whether an appointment to the permanent staff for this category of
worker should be available by reference to their length of
service.
The Court's finding therefore is that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand with the above amendment.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
The Court wishes also to express a view that for the future rates
of pay for these freelance journalists should be subject to the
same pro-rata increases as apply to permanent journalists.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
29th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.