IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[John Wright]

20 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I'm pretty sure Magson was interim, for two years, not substantive. Just to add to the terminological confusion. 

I’m pretty sure she was on secondment for a fixed term. Her job title was Interim Chief Executive.

 

[Gladys]

The confusion over Magson started with DA saying she was an employee, IIRC, before the Ranson matter.  Also, during the Tribunal, didn't they say at some point that the arrangement for her appointment was not clear?  

It was similar for Dr Glover, there was confusion as to whether she was an employee or contractor. 

Now we have a new term of 'substantive' employee, and noting the explanations given by Ghost Ship, it is still not clear as to whether the substance is in their status as an employee or the role they perform. 

As a lay person, if you have a contract of employment with someone, pay them, owe them duties under redundancy and other employment law, then surely they are a substantive employee?  If they perform their duties for someone else who also manages and directs them, do you still owe those duties under employment law to them?  If not, then perhaps they are not a 'substantive' employee, even though you still pay them.  If you do, then surely they are still a 'substantive' employee? 

The term just seems weasel words to avoid a direct answer; something we have seen before. 

[Dirty Buggane]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The term just seems weasel words to avoid a direct answer; 

Funny enough if you look in the dictionary under "Hooper"

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The confusion over Magson started with DA saying she was an employee, IIRC, before the Ranson matter.  Also, during the Tribunal, didn't they say at some point that the arrangement for her appointment was not clear?  

It was similar for Dr Glover, there was confusion as to whether she was an employee or contractor. 

Now we have a new term of 'substantive' employee, and noting the explanations given by Ghost Ship, it is still not clear as to whether the substance is in their status as an employee or the role they perform. 

The point about Magson was that the government seemed to be completely unable to explain to the Tribunal exactly what here employment status was.  While it was clearly an interim appointment, it was never explained whether she was being paid directly or via the organisation she was nominally on secondment from - though I don't think she returned to employment there.  I don't think any contract of employment was produced and either one was never signed or she was being paid through some borderline-legal 'tax efficient' method that everyone wanted to keep quiet.  As so often there's a hint that powerful employees were allowed to bully their way into doing whatever they wanted, irrespective of the rules.

Glover's position was certainly also undefined, though more understandably in the circumstances.  I think they ended up paying her as a 'bank' employee.  Ashford was just babbling whatever came into his head in his usual way of trying to distance himself from any responsibility whatever by claiming she wasn't.  Then, like Hooper in this latest ridiculous spat, he spent ages claiming that words mean something different from what they do mean rather that say he made a mistake.  Presumably this sort of disingenuous behaviour is the only way DHSC Ministers are allowed to behave by their civil servants. 

[wrighty]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The confusion over Magson started with DA saying she was an employee, IIRC, before the Ranson matter.  Also, during the Tribunal, didn't they say at some point that the arrangement for her appointment was not clear?  

It was similar for Dr Glover, there was confusion as to whether she was an employee or contractor. 

Now we have a new term of 'substantive' employee, and noting the explanations given by Ghost Ship, it is still not clear as to whether the substance is in their status as an employee or the role they perform. 

As a lay person, if you have a contract of employment with someone, pay them, owe them duties under redundancy and other employment law, then surely they are a substantive employee?  If they perform their duties for someone else who also manages and directs them, do you still owe those duties under employment law to them?  If not, then perhaps they are not a 'substantive' employee, even though you still pay them.  If you do, then surely they are still a 'substantive' employee? 

The term just seems weasel words to avoid a direct answer; something we have seen before. 

To me, substantive simply means 'permanent'. Of course, nobody has a permanent job - we all retire, die, resign, get sacked at some point - but it's permanent as opposed to fixed term, or casual, or temporary, or zero hours etc. 

[WTF]

6 minutes ago, wrighty said:

To me, substantive simply means 'permanent'. Of course, nobody has a permanent job - we all retire, die, resign, get sacked at some point - but it's permanent as opposed to fixed term, or casual, or temporary, or zero hours etc. 

and to government spin doctors substantive means what ever they want it to mean at that moment in time to suit them selves

[Two-lane]

Whatever anyone here considers is the meaning of the word substantive, the dictionary definition, or the accepted definition in the legal sense, is what really matters - and what a local politician thinks it means is irrelevant.

So I tried the AI ChatGPT thing and got this:

"Substantive employment refers to a type of job position that is permanent or long-term, typically with clear, defined responsibilities and terms. It contrasts with temporary, casual, or contract employment, which is generally for a limited period or specific project. Here are key characteristics of substantive employment:

    Permanency: Substantive roles are ongoing and not limited to a specific timeframe.
    Job Security: Employees in substantive positions typically enjoy greater job security compared to temporary or contract workers.
    Benefits: These positions often come with a full range of employee benefits, such as health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, and other perks.
    Career Development: Substantive employment often includes opportunities for career growth, professional development, and promotions within the organization.
    Defined Role: Employees have a clear job description, defined duties, and responsibilities, contributing to the long-term goals of the organization.

Substantive employment is typically considered more stable and desirable compared to temporary or casual work arrangements."

[John Wright]

For most purposes it doesn’t matter, but I’ve always understood substantive in relation to enployment as meaning a permanent full time post holder without an end date or time limit. As opposed to temporary, acting up, acting, interim

[wrighty]

Seems to me for once that the lawyer, the medic, and AI substantially agree on the meaning of substantive in relation to a contract of employment. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, wrighty said:

Seems to me for once that the lawyer, the medic, and AI substantially agree on the meaning of substantive in relation to a contract of employment. 

But the question wasn't how many MDs were substantive, but simply:  How many medical directors are on the payroll of Manx Care.  If Hooper wanted to answer a different question, he should have answered this one first.

Of course a better question might have been how many were at that time getting paid by IOMG.

[John Wright]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

time getting paid by IOMG.

That wouldn’t work. 

How many MD, substantive or otherwise, are on the Manx Care payroll, is Manx Care reimbursing their actual employment costs to a third party, or is Manx Care being reimbursed for by a third party?

Thats what the question meant, and if the CS were transparent in answering Tynwald Q’s or FoI requests, instead of trying to pull the wool, it’s the one that should have been answered..

[Roger Mexico]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That wouldn’t work. 

How many MD, substantive or otherwise, are on the Manx Care payroll, is Manx Care reimbursing their actual employment costs to a third party, or is Manx Care being reimbursed for by a third party?

Thats what the question meant, and if the CS were transparent in answering Tynwald Q’s or FoI requests, instead of trying to pull the wool, it’s the one that should have been answered..

Oh I wasn't suggesting exact wording, you'd have to pin them down tightly in a way similar to what you suggest and even then they might just answer something else.  And of course the more specific you get, the more likely they are to claim that the answer would be personal information and refuse to say anything at all.

[Ghost Ship]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

That wouldn’t work. 

How many MD, substantive or otherwise, are on the Manx Care payroll, is Manx Care reimbursing their actual employment costs to a third party, or is Manx Care being reimbursed for by a third party?

Thats what the question meant, and if the CS were transparent in answering Tynwald Q’s or FoI requests, instead of trying to pull the wool, it’s the one that should have been answered..

Quite - but I wouldn't even ask how many people are being paid as medical director or acting medical director.

As I basically said yesterday, isn't the only question that needs asking: "Can the honourable minister (or whatever his title is) confirm that the salary costs of the medical director of Manx Care, Dr xxxxxxx, are being paid by Manx Care, and that Manx Care is recovering those costs in full from LLLLLL NHS trust to which he is currently seconded?"   

And if the answer is "No" a supplementary question would be "Why not?"  To which question there may or may not be a reasonable answer.

 

NB - everybody seems to be assuming that the medical director still is (or was previously) an employee of Manx Care.  Is that a known fact?  And is the acting MD definitely an employee?  I ask because I've seen many bizarre and complicated employment relationships in senior NHS roles...

Edited June 21 by Ghost Ship

[Ghost Ship]

7 hours ago, Gladys said:

... As a lay person, if you have a contract of employment with someone, pay them, owe them duties under redundancy and other employment law, then surely they are a substantive employee?  If they perform their duties for someone else who also manages and directs them, do you still owe those duties under employment law to them?  If not, then perhaps they are not a 'substantive' employee, even though you still pay them.  If you do, then surely they are still a 'substantive' employee? ...

 

Certainly within the NHS in the UK a "substantive" contract simply means one thing: it means that your contrcat of employment is neither fixed term nor of some other temporary nature.  So all employment contrcats are basically "substantive" unless they are in some way time limited.  That's all the term means.  

It is possible for someone to be a sustantive employee but be in a non-substantive post.  Katharine Magson is an example of such an arrangement across two different organisations.  AIUI she had a substantive contrcat with her employer which was a Clinical commissioning group in the home counties, but she had been seconded into a non-sustantive interim post on the Isle of Man.  Such arrangements between different trusts are very common in the UK, as are similar arrangements within a trust.  In theory she could simply have returned* to her substantive post after the IoM but I don't think she did...

I'm not an employment lawyer so I can't comment on the legal effects of someone being employed by one organisation but being seconded into another.  But I think I'm right in saying that one of the reasons KM wanted to be seconded to and not employed by Manx Care was her concern about how employment in the IoM would impact her NHS pension rights(?).   I would have assumed those benefits etc were simply transferrable between the UK > IoM >UK but perhaps not...

*  In theory.  I know at least one senior manager who was seconded to a different trust and when his secondment ended discovered that he no longer had a substantive post to return to

7 hours ago, Gladys said:

... The term just seems weasel words to avoid a direct answer; something we have seen before. 

 

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

... Thats what the question meant, and if the CS were transparent in answering Tynwald Q’s or FoI requests, instead of trying to pull the wool, it’s the one that should have been answered..

Yeah - I can understand how you both feel, but at the same time I think the wrong question was asked.  (Somebody posted yesterday that the question asked was "How many medical directors are on the payroll of Manx Care?")

I suspect the answer "One" is not the whole story, but I suspect it isn't strictly speaking inaccurate either.

If the questioner wanted to know what the respective funding arrangements (and recharge arrangements if any) for the Medical director and Acting Medical director were, that's what they should have asked about.

 

 

[littlebushy]

We can discuss the semantics as long as we like. Everyone, including Hooper, knows what the question was. He didn't want to give a politically embarrassing answer so he obfuscated.