[BBC News]Talks over island care services

[Newsbot]

Negotiations are under way on the transfer of care services, following the murder of two teenagers.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/5368740.stm

[Juan Kerr]

Negotiations are under way on the transfer of care services, following the murder of two teenagers.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/5368740.stm

 

I seem to recall it was not just the directors of MFS who were criticised.

 

How do they evaluate individual members of staff before rolling them over to the DHSS. Surely if the DHSS bring them in without checks, and without investigating they are just shipping a problem from an external supplier to inside the DHSS itself.

[Gladys]

Rotten timing, make an announcement about the transfer and then everyone goes on holiday!

 

It must be very unsettling for the staff.

[Juan Kerr]

Rotten timing, make an announcement about the transfer and then everyone goes on holiday!

 

It must be very unsettling for the staff.

 

I agree Glady's but would point out the obvious.

 

MFS was a contract provider to the DHSS. Working for a contract provider is not a secure job. Contracts can be changed / cancelled. Its the nature of the society we live in. If MFS had not lost its contract they would still be employed, I find it bizarre that the government is being criticised when it owes no duty of care to these people. It is simply responsible for making sure that services continue in a cost effective and acceptable way.

 

If it needs to re-employ some of these people to do that then fair enough. But it has no duty to any non government worker to guarantee continuing employment.

[Gladys]

Yep, take your points Juan, but while MFS got a fair hammering in the report, I think the care system overall has to bear a fair proportion of the blame for this.

 

Can only speak about the UK, but in these cases when there is a transfer of a contract, depending on the terms of the contracts there may well be a transfer of undertaking which includes the contracts of employment that the outgoing service provider has with its employees. So the staff will transfer across as well and there is continuity of employment for redundancy and other employment rights. (I know this only too well, from past experience.)

 

That is not to say that the staff have to be kept on, but the new service provider may be faced with redundancy claims etc. This is possibly one of the difficulties that is causing the delay in making an announcement about the new service provider?

 

Edited to add: Got the brain in gear, and in the UK it is the TUPE regulations that apply (Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations). In the UK TUPE can very often apply to these situations in respect of the staff actually delivering the service, but not in respect of the back office staff. I don't know if the IOM has adopted anything like TUPE, so it may be a legal non-point.

 

But morally, perhaps there is a point.

[Juan Kerr]

Edited to add: Got the brain in gear, and in the UK it is the TUPE regulations that apply (Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations). In the UK TUPE can very often apply to these situations in respect of the staff actually delivering the service, but not in respect of the back office staff. I don't know if the IOM has adopted anything like TUPE, so it may be a legal non-point.

 

But morally, perhaps there is a point.

 

TUPE does not apply over here I think (although parts might have come in).

 

Anyway this covers the transfer of undertakings from one employer to another, so in the UK if MFS got bought by another company TUPE would apply. In this case MFS still exists its just got no contract, the DHSS have not taken over MFS or taken over any of MFS's contracts or operations. St Christopher (from what I have read) is not taking over MFS either, its taking over its contracts with the DHSS. MFS would seem therefore free to make staff redundant, at which time their contract ends with new contracts to be offered by St Christopher or the DHSS on whatever market terms apply.

 

Neither would seem to have any legal obligations to continue contracts of employment that will die with MFS

 

Moral points accepted though.

[Gladys]

TUPE applies to contracts as well. The whole point of TUPE is to cover instances where a business which employs people, whether just a contract or the whole undertaking, (not the company which will continue to exist, but its business) transfers to another owner.

 

If the company is bought then there is no issue as they buy the company in its entirety and there is no change in continuity of employment as employment is with the company, all that changes is that the company's owner.

 

The employment contracts will not die with MFS, MFS have an obligation to meet the redundancy entitlement of staff. Whether they have the cash to do so is another matter!

[Boo]

YEs but why should the staff of MFS suffer for what is quite obviously the not their fault. Don't suppose it' possible to cancel the DHSS contract thought is it, although probably more appropriate.

[Juan Kerr]

TUPE applies to contracts as well. The whole point of TUPE is to cover instances where a business which employs people, whether just a contract or the whole undertaking, (not the company which will continue to exist, but its business) transfers to another owner.

 

If the company is bought then there is no issue as they buy the company in its entirety and there is no change in continuity of employment as employment is with the company, all that changes is that the company's owner.

 

The employment contracts will not die with MFS, MFS have an obligation to meet the redundancy entitlement of staff. Whether they have the cash to do so is another matter!

 

I don't see any contracts continuing. MFS has had its DHSS contract binned - it still has contracts of employment with its workers but if there's no money and nobody is offering redundancy its an academic point. St Christopher are being offered separate contracts (I assume on tighter terms and conditions as a result of the enquiry) to provide services to the DHSS that were previously supplied by MFS. There does not seem to be any continuity in any form. It appears that they are not taking over MFS contracts.

 

It seems stupid to promise staff continuity when the legal position does not seem to dovetail with this.

 

I also assume as some MFS staff were named in the enquiry the new employer does not want to be rail-roaded into having to offer continuity as presumably it might want to be quite strict on its hiring contracts or bring in experienced staff from elsewhere (the experience of certain MFS staff was strongly criticised in the report).

[keith lard]

I think you'll find the majority of MFS staff moving over to St Christophers

 

After all there is still the same number children needing care, it will just be a case of St Christophers management taking over the existing households

[localyokel]

I think you'll find the majority of MFS staff moving over to St Christophers

 

After all there is still the same number children needing care, it will just be a case of St Christophers management taking over the existing households

 

That would appear to be the sensible option. But if that is the case what is all this public fighting for?

[Gladys]

I think the point is that in the UK the staff's positions would be protected as they would transfer across to the new service provider with continuity of employment under TUPE regulations. But here, as there are no equivalent regs. there is no such protection for the staff, which does seem a bit harsh given that it was the management of MFS that was criticised and, by implication, the system by allowing weak management of such an important service.

 

Most likely most staff will be offered jobs by the new service provider, but what is not clear is whether there will be continuity of employment which will affect things such as redundancy and maternity leave rights. They will be starting a new employment and have to wait (is it two years?) to become entitled to such rights. They will also have lost their one week for each year worked statutory redundancy entitlement which they will have accrued during their time at MFS.

 

As for any staff members who are not up to the job, well they should be dealt with under the correct processes and the issue should not be ducked by weak management simply making them redundant.