27th October 2011, 01:46 PM
Closed shop in legalistic terms refers to Trade Unions and Employer organisations of which the IfA is neither so it isn't an appropriate term.
I haven't been privy to the IfA legal advice, but I would imagine that it says something to the effect that acknowledging membership of a professional body is not tantamount to restricting competition or forming a cartel or constraining trade provided that membership of that body is open to all and that the terms and conditions of membership are fair and appropriate. As most practising archaeologists (well maybe with One or two exceptions) irrespective of whether they are IfA members acknowledge that the IfA duties and ethical oblgations are fair and appropriate, it doesn't seem to me there is a case to oppose.
If you are asking whether it will become harder for persons who don't subscribe collectively and financially to the IfA i.e non-members, to get work in archaeology, I suspect the answer is 'yes', but I would doubt that classes as a constraint to trade. It should also be borne in mind that provision of public services (of which development control is clearly a part) can actually override European competition law. So whichever way up you look at it, the IfA is probably in the clear. And as I said before unless someone has the appetite to challenge their interpretation of the law, we are probably seeing the beginning of 'IfA-creep' i.e once one planning authority takes it on others will follow....
I haven't been privy to the IfA legal advice, but I would imagine that it says something to the effect that acknowledging membership of a professional body is not tantamount to restricting competition or forming a cartel or constraining trade provided that membership of that body is open to all and that the terms and conditions of membership are fair and appropriate. As most practising archaeologists (well maybe with One or two exceptions) irrespective of whether they are IfA members acknowledge that the IfA duties and ethical oblgations are fair and appropriate, it doesn't seem to me there is a case to oppose.
If you are asking whether it will become harder for persons who don't subscribe collectively and financially to the IfA i.e non-members, to get work in archaeology, I suspect the answer is 'yes', but I would doubt that classes as a constraint to trade. It should also be borne in mind that provision of public services (of which development control is clearly a part) can actually override European competition law. So whichever way up you look at it, the IfA is probably in the clear. And as I said before unless someone has the appetite to challenge their interpretation of the law, we are probably seeing the beginning of 'IfA-creep' i.e once one planning authority takes it on others will follow....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...