So, are you, as an individual Cllr, the employer of council staff - discuss

Question

To take this individual question away from derailing an earlier thread, it is presented as a rhetorical question solely intended to generate thought / debate rather than to arrive at a definitive answer.  (I already know what the answer is );o)

0. The case of Heesom v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and Hughes v Ledbury Town Council are relevant.

   The case law makes it clear that a the quasi employer/employee status exists between a Councillor and an officer of the Council and whilst the management of the officer may be delegated to a Committee this does not remove the fact the Council, and therefore the individual Cllr, is the employer.

Answer 1

That doesn't seem right at all. A council is a corporate body and as such is a legal person. The council is undoubtedly the employer.

Clearly council decisions are made by councillors acting collectively. Councillors will also have a working relationship with officers. The Heesom case includes the comment "there was a mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and their officers".

That is very far from claiming that the councillor is the employer.

Comments

Barry >>
“…as an employer…”
“…of an employer…”

That’s the basis of your argument?

I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on that - would you?

---

The basis of the argument is the simple facts of law. Look, for example, at the fact that the council must operate PAYE for its officers. Who do you suppose is registered with HMRC and makes returns in respect of council employees? Individual councillors or the council? You're digging yourself into absurdities by putting too much stress on forms of words. If you suppose councillors are the employer, which councillor is the employer? They can't collectively be an employer unless they are in some legal form that allows them to act as a single entity. The only possible entity that excludes the council itself would be a partnership. But councillors most definitely are not a partnership. Have you accepted that the council is a legal person? if so, on what grounds are you attempting to say that the council is not the employer? I'm asking for a legal argument, not for fragments of opinions. That councillors must implement employment policies no more makes them the employer than does the same thing for a company manager.

---

No, the difference is OF BEING to ACTING AS and yes I would bet the mortgage on it. Has your council ever executed a deed? Check the execution line and you'll find something like "Executed by XYZ Council acting by Cllr John Doe". It might be a surprise to you, but some people, particularly legal people, choose their words very, very carefully because they have a precise legal meaning. The use of the phrase "acting by" is very much to imply that the duty is bound on the Council rather than the individual Cllr signing the document.

---

For CP >> the premise of the question is NOT (never has been) that either the council OR the individual Cllr is the employer.
The question was never framed in that premise - it couldn’t be and it wasn’t.   That would present the absurdity you seem to be labouring to present. Stop, that is the non sequitur you previously argued.
The discussion is the apparent scenario where BOTH the council AND the individual Cllr can be, under certain circumstances, BOTH (apparently - evidence) considered as the employer.
I have never suggested the council is NOT a / the “legal person” and neither have I argued that the council is NOT the employer.
Here it comes - this is the entire point of the discussion - there are elements where BOTH the council AND the individual Cllr ARE BEING considered as the employer.
The straw man is that you seem to be arguing a point which is not contested.
It’s not either or - it is the apparent application of the definition of employer to BOTH the council AND the individual Cllr.
Nowhere have I argued that the council ISN’T the employer.
Are you able to agree that - it appears - that MOs are referring to individual Cllrs as employers?

---

People use words carefully - I agree entirely.
Do you think people should also READ. Words carefully?

If yes, do you think you might?