Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Now you say it, I remember reading about it at the time.  it's just slightly odd they haven't updated any of the official websites yet, though it's technically been a week.  Have they forgotten to do some legal flummery and are having to wait for the new House to sort it out?

Apropos of nothing ,except I found it on King's Twitter while googling, here's a picture of Michael Portillo , delighted that, after having travelled the whole world, he has finally found someone dressed more ridiculously than he is:

Image

Does that clown raid the dressing up box every time someone important or an ex politico comes to the island. I wonder if he was given some Manx tat as a souvenir of his visit to Tynpotwald?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes it’s obvious that she is unhappy and has various issues. But let’s wait and see what the outcome is.

It is also possible that Ransom can’t  get anything right and we as taxpayers are saddled with a legal bill due to her incompetence. 

I am certainly not saying that will be the case but the IOMG also has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

As usual there are too many on here who make the automatic assumption that the Government are always wrong, stupid, incompetent or just plain evil.

All these bar room lawyers (“they are going to have a difficult time proving it is not constructive dismissal”) and those quoting hearsay as well.
 

For example

(“ Somebody told me she wasn’t transferred over. So was basically left in a legacy role that didn’t really exist that she hoped she’d get fed up of and then jack it in and go back to the UK. So a likely case for constructive dismissal “)

How about that for conjecture?

 

 

If that is the case, then surely the right thing to do is put a performance improvement plan in place if it is relatively low level failures, or if it is within any probationary period have the difficult conversation that it isn't working. If that doesn't address the issues  then there will be a disciplinary path to follow.

Incompetence isn't managed by moving sideways, or sidelining in the hope they will leave. 

That is not conjecture,  just pretty basic HR. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

They must be expecting a real humdinger of a tribunal with Ranson as they've set aside a whole 14 days in January and February to hear it.

As they have for another case Mr Graeme Jones V Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, which will take place in December and January before then.  The Clerk of Tynwald has just retired of course (though I reckon he was of retirement age), though I can't find out is a replacement has yet been appointed.

Some of Athol Streets finest are going to be rubbing their hands with excitement. Bet these will cost serious money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Does that clown raid the dressing up box every time someone important or an ex politico comes to the island. I wonder if he was given some Manx tat as a souvenir of his visit to Tynpotwald?

Those Shrieval buckled patents are upwards of £200 a pair. Skello doesn't carry it well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not saying she is or was, as I said it is  possible.

I am not one to consider only one side of the argument.

Isn’t this why we have these tribunals?

Still missing the point.  The point of the  Tribunal seems to be to consider if she was unfairly or constructively dismissed because she was moved into a sideline position.  If the defence is incompetence, then the Tribunal I think is bound to ask why the usual HR performance improvement routes, including disciplinary action,  were not followed as they are the correct routes to deal with incompetence. 

It is not defensible from a HR viewpoint to address incompetence or performance failings by putting someone in a position where they feel they have no option but to resign, or they are prevented from fulfilling the role they were engaged to perform without their agreement. 

Of course, we don't know the detail and discussion is hypothetical, but a defence may be that the move was with mutual agreement after a proper disciplibary process where the failings were discussed and a new more appropriate role was found. 

It is outdated (and no longer acceptable) HR practise to take the sidelining route in the case of incompetence in the hope they resign, rather than go through a formal disciplinary process.  This is done in the mistaken belief that getting the formal disciplinary process wrong is more likely to expose the employer to an unfair dismissal claim than just "managing them out of the door". 

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Still missing the point.  The point of the  Tribunal seems to be to consider if she was unfairly or constructively dismissed because she was moved into a sideline position.  If the defence is incompetence, then the Tribunal I think is bound to ask why the usual HR performance improvement routes, including disciplinary action,  were not followed as they are the correct routes to deal with incompetence. 

It is not defensible from a HR viewpoint to address incompetence or performance failings by putting someone in a position where they feel they have no option but to resign, or they are prevented from fulfilling the role they were engaged to perform without their agreement. 

Of course, we don't know the detail and discussion is hypothetical, but a defence may be that the move was with mutual agreement after a proper disciplibary process where the failings were discussed and a new more appropriate role was found. 

It is outdated (and no longer acceptable) HR practise to take the sidelining route in the case of incompetence in the hope they resign, rather than go through a formal disciplinary process.  This is done in the mistaken belief that getting the formal disciplinary process wrong is more likely to expose the employer to an unfair dismissal claim than just "managing them out of the door". 

A lot of ifs and buts in there Gladys 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

A lot of ifs and buts in there Gladys 

That is why it has gone to a Tribunal, but the comments regarding the actual law are roughly right (and I am sure can be refined  by a lawyer).  The ifs and buts are about the facts.  But one if or but that cannot be argued is that an employer cannot deal with disciplinary matters by managing someone out of the door rather than through a formal disciplinary process as you suggest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That is why it has gone to a Tribunal, but the comments regarding the actual law are roughly right (and I am sure can be refined  by a lawyer).  The ifs and buts are about the facts.  But one if or but that cannot be argued is that an employer cannot deal with disciplinary matters by managing someone out of the door rather than through a formal disciplinary process as you suggest. 

Her husband is her legal representative I hear. This will not be pretty. 

The main question, apart from the decision of course, is whether it will cast any light on how Covid was dealt with and could it have been done differently, or better (whatever that means in this scenario)

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2021 at 5:12 AM, John Wright said:

And yet, I know someone who had blood cancer, diagnosed at the same time as me, in remission, had worrying signs of relapse in Late spring/early summer , was only offered an August appointment, which was then cancelled and rescheduled to November, who has had to start chemo privately.

The boy David and his staff/Manx Care won’t answer letters from this person!

What have McMillan said about this. Or even the treating Consultant.? Of course there is no credible complaints process at the moment as Bill Shimmins motion in Tynwald highlighted some 6 months ago. 

Note - Women are being urged to report early possible signs for cancers. 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/women-urged-to-be-vigilant-for-signs-of-gynaecological-cancer/

Presumably if they do they will be treated ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That is why it has gone to a Tribunal, but the comments regarding the actual law are roughly right (and I am sure can be refined  by a lawyer).  The ifs and buts are about the facts.  But one if or but that cannot be argued is that an employer cannot deal with disciplinary matters by managing someone out of the door rather than through a formal disciplinary process as you suggest. 

I don’t recall making any such suggestion. However happy to leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

It is also possible that Ransom can’t  get anything right and we as taxpayers are saddled with a legal bill due to her incompetence. 

 

 

 

You raised incompetence as a possible causative factor and I pointed out that  incompetence should be dealt with through the proper disciplinary process, not by sidelining, if that is what happened.  It would seem that the incompetence, if any, was not the cause of the claim, but how it was handled that is likely to saddle the taxpayers. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...