17th June 2008, 02:11 PM
Posted by Drumcharry:
The IFA can take disciplinary action against its own members, or against RAOs. It is up to RAOs themselves to ensure that their staff adhere to IFA standards (whether or not the staff are IFA members), through the instructions they issue to their staff, or through contracts of employment.
In the event of a breach of IFA standards by a non-member employed by an RAO, it would be up to the RAO (the individual's employer) to put things right, potentially through disciplinary action against their employee, either for wilfully disobeying instructions or for breach of contract.
The IFA might take disciplinary action against the RAO (not the non-member individual), if a complaint was made (and upheld after investigation) to the effect that the employee committing the breach had done so because they were told to by their employer, or that the employer was complicit in the breach because they had done nothing to prevent it or put it right.
If the breach had been committed by an IFA member, then (after a complaint and an investigation) the IFA could take action against either the individual, the RAO or both.
Of course, if the unit involved is not an RAO and the individual is not a member, then neither is subject to the IFA disciplinary code, and no-one can do anything. That is the main point, and the reason why the IFA is not a 'vanity' organisation - its members, and its RAOs, voluntarily submit themselves to the IFA standards and disciplinary code. People who choose to stay outside the IFA are free to practice to a lower standard if they want to, and accountable to no-one for doing so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:Therefore the idea that the IFA has no authority over non members is entirely false if they work within an RAO. There is a very interesting legal point here that you cannot be bound by the rules of an organisation that you chose not to sign up to but, in order to gain employment, you are forced to comply with that organisation which does not necessarily have authority or consensusI think you are missing the point a bit.
The IFA can take disciplinary action against its own members, or against RAOs. It is up to RAOs themselves to ensure that their staff adhere to IFA standards (whether or not the staff are IFA members), through the instructions they issue to their staff, or through contracts of employment.
In the event of a breach of IFA standards by a non-member employed by an RAO, it would be up to the RAO (the individual's employer) to put things right, potentially through disciplinary action against their employee, either for wilfully disobeying instructions or for breach of contract.
The IFA might take disciplinary action against the RAO (not the non-member individual), if a complaint was made (and upheld after investigation) to the effect that the employee committing the breach had done so because they were told to by their employer, or that the employer was complicit in the breach because they had done nothing to prevent it or put it right.
If the breach had been committed by an IFA member, then (after a complaint and an investigation) the IFA could take action against either the individual, the RAO or both.
Of course, if the unit involved is not an RAO and the individual is not a member, then neither is subject to the IFA disciplinary code, and no-one can do anything. That is the main point, and the reason why the IFA is not a 'vanity' organisation - its members, and its RAOs, voluntarily submit themselves to the IFA standards and disciplinary code. People who choose to stay outside the IFA are free to practice to a lower standard if they want to, and accountable to no-one for doing so.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished