Journalists in Johnston Press are planning a group-wide one-day strike next Wednesday in the continuing dispute over the company’s new content management system.

Last month, National Union of Journalists members across the group voted by a margin of 70-30 to hold strike action over the introduction of the Atex system which largely does away with the need for sub-editors.

The union has since been considering its next move and plans have now been drawn up for a one-day stoppage on Wednesday.

There has been no official confirmation by the union of the proposed strike, but HTFP understands it will be discussed in a telephone conference this morning by representatives of NUJ chapels across the group.

If it goes ahead, the stoppage is expected to affect 13 centres across JP, which is the UK’s second largest local newspaper publisher.

Last month’s vote saw 246 of those balloted voting in favour of strike action, 101 voting against, and nine spoilt papers.

HTFP also understands that a second planned one-day strike at Scarborough-based Yorkshire Regional Newspapers, originally scheduled for next Tuesday, has now been called off.

Johnston Press has so far made no comment on the strike plans.

Comments

Sign of the Times (14/05/2010 09:26:54)
So there were only 356 people balloted and out of those there were nine spoilt papers?! What’s the matter with them, is writing an X too tough for some Johnston staff?

JohnJoe (14/05/2010 10:23:41)
Does anyone know how many journalists work at JP in total? It would be helpful to know what percentage of journalists are planning to strike

In the know (14/05/2010 10:28:33)
The spoilt papers were likely to be from people who were about to be made redundant at the time of the ballot hence their votes would not have counted. They were advised to write on their sheets that this was the case.

Factfinder (14/05/2010 10:33:45)
Most JP journalists aren’t in the union. Of the ones that are 35 per cent couldn’t even be bothered to vote which suggests they didn’t want to strike. Of the 65 per cent of union members who did vote 30 per cent voted not to strike. Eight of the 21 centres balloted have voted not to strike. I would hardly call that an overwhelming mandate.

Vulnerable (14/05/2010 10:37:58)
Johnston Press has called in its legal team to block the strike. According to the lawyers, JP doesn’t employ any journalists. They claim the NUJ should have notified each subsidiary company, which does employ the journalists, individually. So the answer to JohnJoe’s question is, technically, none. We await further news.

Factfinder (14/05/2010 10:44:56)
How can JP block these journalists from striking if it claims not to employ these same journalists??? If JP are successful with this legal challenge then that really will be egg on the face for the NUJ, and will show they haven’t done their homework.

Welshman (14/05/2010 11:10:38)
How small-minded are you, Sign of the Times?

Scribbler (14/05/2010 11:38:27)
If anyone cares to visit JP’s own website they will see the company professes to “employ over 2,500 locally based journalists”. So does it employ them or doesn’t it?
It seems that it employs them when it wants to, but washes its hands like Pontius Pilate when it smells trouble in the wind, calling in the (very expensive, no doubt) lawyers to argue its petty case that its/its subsidiary companies’ journalists shouldn’t exercise their right to withhold their labour.

Col Kurtz (14/05/2010 14:16:53)
This strike is not happening thanks to NUJ incomeptance.
Anyone who didn’t vote is a coward.

David Hoyle (17/05/2010 09:25:02)
Dear Col Kurtz, did you mean to write ‘NUJ incompetence’ rather than ‘NUJ incompetance’?
Clearly, you are a hero, albeit a thick one.

In the know (17/05/2010 10:25:44)
Funny how the JP logo appears on journalists’ pay packets when they are supposedly not employed by JP. Hmmm. “We act with integrity,” says JP – “NOT!” says the world.

Wolfie (17/05/2010 10:28:28)
I note that JP used the same trick with the TUPE transfer con – pretending they could use TUPE because journos were transferring to different companies eg. Scarborough to Sheffield when really it was one JP centre to another. Bending company law to suit their purposes.

Scribbler (17/05/2010 10:55:43)
Perhaps Johnston Press “non-employees”, when asked by the outside world (advertisers, businesspeople, MPs, other important contacts) who runs the company they work for, can enlighten them?

Wordsmith (17/05/2010 11:37:23)
JP 1 NUJ 0

Kick in the Ballots (17/05/2010 11:57:13)
Wordsmith is unfair on the NUJ. The journalists’ argument is with JP’s intransigent upper tier, not the lowly management minions that have to do Edinburgh’s bidding. No doubt if the NUJ had balloted each chapel/centre, the hierarchy would have run to their High Court chums to challenge that move instead, saying the journalists WERE employed centrally and consequently their action against individual centres would be deemed illegal.

Donnacha DeLong (17/05/2010 12:27:32)
NUJ incompetence? Hardly. Thanks to the anti-trade union laws and courts increasingly denying workers rights, Johnston Press were able to apply for an injunction based on a legal fiction – that they don’t employ people. They set the pay rate, decide on group policy (including introducing ATEX) and set other organisational policy, but that’s not enough. This ludicrous situation just adds to the BA, RMT and other cases where the courts have proved that they’re on the side of the bosses and happy to ignore workers rights (as defined by Article 12 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the ILO Conventions – which are supposed to be binding on the UK).