The machine, which was installed at JBP’s Rotherham site in July, has improved efficiency across the business by freeing up the company’s Schneider Senator guillotines for longer run work, according to director John Brailsford. JBP offers a quick-turnaround service for on-demand card printing, as well as more commercial work, at its sites in Rotherham and Barnsley and the Aerocut is being used to cut and crease short-run jobs. “Our volume of work is the same, but it is now being processed much more efficiently. We’ve been finding that for runs of fewer than 200, the Aerocut is the most efficient process. More than that and we put it on the guillotines,” said Brailsford. “We’ve been aggressively promoting our same-day service and this installation has really helped process this kind of work,” he added. The Aerocut is capable of handling sheet sizes up to B3 and stock weights of 120-350gsm. Speed is dependent on job complexity, but a typical A4 job, involving two cuts and one crease, can be processed at 20 sheets per minute, according to Uchida. “It’s so easy to set up and within just a few seconds we’ve changed formats, added a crease or set up a perforation, even for run lengths as few as one and without a single waste sheet”, said Brailsford. The Aerocut, which has a list price of £18,000, was supplied by Fingerprint Digital in Newmarket. The machine was ordered at North Print and Pack but was only installed last month due to a shortage of stock. John Brailsford Printers has a turnover of £1.1m and employs 16...

It has been billed as the biggest shake-up in employment law for half a century, and it was the government who shook it up on 29 July. From this date, the coalition announced, people applying to go before an employment tribunal could no longer do so for free. Staff seeking redress now face a two-stage fee process, which is both expensive and time consuming. But why should taxpayers foot the £74m annual bill for people to “escalate” workplace disputes to a tribunal, asks justice minister Helen Grant. People, she insists, where they can afford to, must now pay not once but twice: a charge to lodge a claim, then another fee when the case goes to a hearing. Individuals will pay anywhere between £160 and £950, with appeals costing £400 to apply and £1,200 for a full hearing. As well as the two stages, there are two fee levels (see table below). These are based on the type of claim: disputes on wages and refusals to allow time off, for example, are deemed less costly to deal with and are therefore classed as ‘type A’ claims, attracting a smaller fee. Cases such discrimination and dismissal cost more to run their tribunal course, and these ‘type B’ claims attract higher fees – £950 for a hearing. Groups of claimants pay different fees. Grant maintains: “It is not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. But it is in everyone’s interest to avoid drawn-out disputes that emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses. That’s why we’re encouraging quicker, simpler and cheaper alternatives like mediation.” BPIF legal department head Anne Copley says the federation records about 70 tribunal cases a year, but the true number across all print companies is probably higher. The change is good, she reckons, but only if “intent matches reality in preventing hopeless cases that force employers to defend at high cost, even though they are meritless”. She says: “Generally, members are happy that claimants have to put their money where their mouth is, but it’s a curate’s egg. This change may get rid of a few hopeless cases, but it will take longer than before and thus be a longer wait for employers to know they are in the clear.” It will take longer because from next April all disputes must go through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) before going to tribunal, says Copley. This, she adds, could double the current timescale to six months. And if no more resources are allocated to Acas or tribunals, it could mire the process even more. There is another problem. A disgruntled staffer stumping up £950 may insist on that amount on top of any settlement...

It has been billed as the biggest shake-up in employment law for half a century, and it was the government who shook it up on 29 July. From this date, the coalition announced, people applying to go before an employment tribunal could no longer do so for free. Staff seeking redress now face a two-stage fee process, which is both expensive and time consuming. But why should taxpayers foot the £74m annual bill for people to “escalate” workplace disputes to a tribunal, asks justice minister Helen Grant. People, she insists, where they can afford to, must now pay not once but twice: a charge to lodge a claim, then another fee when the case goes to a hearing. Individuals will pay anywhere between £160 and £950, with appeals costing £400 to apply and £1,200 for a full hearing. As well as the two stages, there are two fee levels (see table below). These are based on the type of claim: disputes on wages and refusals to allow time off, for example, are deemed less costly to deal with and are therefore classed as ‘type A’ claims, attracting a smaller fee. Cases such discrimination and dismissal cost more to run their tribunal course, and these ‘type B’ claims attract higher fees – £950 for a hearing. Groups of claimants pay different fees. Grant maintains: “It is not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. But it is in everyone’s interest to avoid drawn-out disputes that emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses. That’s why we’re encouraging quicker, simpler and cheaper alternatives like mediation.” BPIF legal department head Anne Copley says the federation records about 70 tribunal cases a year, but the true number across all print companies is probably higher. The change is good, she reckons, but only if “intent matches reality in preventing hopeless cases that force employers to defend at high cost, even though they are meritless”. She says: “Generally, members are happy that claimants have to put their money where their mouth is, but it’s a curate’s egg. This change may get rid of a few hopeless cases, but it will take longer than before and thus be a longer wait for employers to know they are in the clear.” It will take longer because from next April all disputes must go through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) before going to tribunal, says Copley. This, she adds, could double the current timescale to six months. And if no more resources are allocated to Acas or tribunals, it could mire the process even more. There is another problem. A disgruntled staffer stumping up £950 may insist on that amount on top of any settlement...

It has been billed as the biggest shake-up in employment law for half a century, and it was the government who shook it up on 29 July. From this date, the coalition announced, people applying to go before an employment tribunal could no longer do so for free. Staff seeking redress now face a two-stage fee process, which is both expensive and time consuming. But why should taxpayers foot the £74m annual bill for people to “escalate” workplace disputes to a tribunal, asks justice minister Helen Grant. People, she insists, where they can afford to, must now pay not once but twice: a charge to lodge a claim, then another fee when the case goes to a hearing. Individuals will pay anywhere between £160 and £950, with appeals costing £400 to apply and £1,200 for a full hearing. As well as the two stages, there are two fee levels (see table below). These are based on the type of claim: disputes on wages and refusals to allow time off, for example, are deemed less costly to deal with and are therefore classed as ‘type A’ claims, attracting a smaller fee. Cases such discrimination and dismissal cost more to run their tribunal course, and these ‘type B’ claims attract higher fees – £950 for a hearing. Groups of claimants pay different fees. Grant maintains: “It is not fair on the taxpayer to foot the entire bill. But it is in everyone’s interest to avoid drawn-out disputes that emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses. That’s why we’re encouraging quicker, simpler and cheaper alternatives like mediation.” BPIF legal department head Anne Copley says the federation records about 70 tribunal cases a year, but the true number across all print companies is probably higher. The change is good, she reckons, but only if “intent matches reality in preventing hopeless cases that force employers to defend at high cost, even though they are meritless”. She says: “Generally, members are happy that claimants have to put their money where their mouth is, but it’s a curate’s egg. This change may get rid of a few hopeless cases, but it will take longer than before and thus be a longer wait for employers to know they are in the clear.” It will take longer because from next April all disputes must go through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) before going to tribunal, says Copley. This, she adds, could double the current timescale to six months. And if no more resources are allocated to Acas or tribunals, it could mire the process even more. There is another problem. A disgruntled staffer stumping up £950 may insist on that amount on top of any settlement...

The owner of the Wyndeham Group and pre-media business Rhapsody Media experienced a 4.9% decline in sales to £56.1m (2012: £59m), in the six months to 30 June, while EBITDA rose marginally by 1.1% to £4.4m (2012: £4.3m). Chairman Mark Scanlon said the sales figures reflected a 5.6% downturn in web offset volumes, which were partially offset by a 1% price increase. Comparative turnover in 2012 had been inflated by Olympic contracts, he said. Scanlon highlighted the falling demand when the group published its 2012 full year results in April, and as such he said the interim figures are as expected. He added: “The deterioration in our web volume is lower than market attrition so we are holding up fairly well and we are really pleased with that performance.” The firm posted profits before tax of £800,000 (2012: £400,000) after exceptional charges of £0.6m and £600,000 of interest charges. Operating profit meanwhile was down slightly year-on-year at £2m (2012: £2.2m). Net debt was reduced from £30.5m at the same point in 2012, to £27.7m after payment in April this year of the final installment of the deferred £5m from its acquisition of St Ives Web, which was completed in April 2011. Walsted paid £15m in cash at the time with £5m deferred for payment over two years. Funding was provided by The Royal Bank of Scotland. Scanlon said that the business was on track to begin paying back the £14.6m owed to Walstead’s founding shareholders, in the second half of the year. “Our profits are greater in the second half of the year so we would expect to see a greater proportion of debt paid off. Everything is on plan in that regard which we are very happy with,” he added. Full year EBITDA and net earnings were anticipated to be in line with 2012 results, he added. Internal direct costs and overheads fell by 7.7% and 9.1% respectively, during H1, while full-time workforce numbers decreased by 8.9% to 1,018. Among capital expenditure in the six months to 30 June the group invested £300,000 in two mailing lines at Wyndeham Heron in a move to bring its mailing in-house. Meanwhile the business renewed and extended a number of major print contracts during the period, including Condé Nast, The Economist, The Spectator and The Financial Times. Scanlon said: “Our contracted customers now represent 73% of net turnover and endow the Group with a stable platform from which we believe we can develop a successful long-term business. “Our clients are endorsing our high quality work and that we are a reputable producer. Because we have four web offset plants we are able to deliver to a wide footprint, so we can...