Is this Restriction of Trade?

[BAJR]

I have notice in recent years job adverts asking for an equivalent level of experience that would make you eligible for IFA membership rather than asking for membership which is fair enough.

I wonder how that happened ?

BAJR works in mysterious ways. that is the wording I will allow on the adverts as it is fair and appropriate ... and no you get no discount on your insurance. mine is due again... I wish they would

[BAJR]

I wonder if the BAJR List is approved. as I am stricter than the IfA on membership

[Unitof1]

isnt it a little pointless to wonder about a small matter of restriction of trade when this charity is both curator and contrator. The whole of wales is a restriction of trade from that view point. From their accounts they are working part time, have made voluntary redundancies and have a pension deficit. No presure on there then to get rid of any compertition and jack the price up. In fact I am surprised that any independants could survive there, probably a misserable experiece to boot.

Maybe those restricted from tradeing should try to get at the service level agrements that these charities have with the councils and ask to get on the tender for them. Maybe poke their knoses into the grant subsidies that they get from Cadw

My appologies to hosty if he gets telephone calls over this and loses members and respect

[Martin Locock]

There is nothing on the CPAT website to imply that only ROs will be allowed to work in the area.
http://www.cpat.org.uk/services/dc/dc.htm

As planning advisers they are often asked how to find a contractor to undertake the required work, and they have chosen to provide a link to the IfA RO directory and to offer guidance.

Developers are free to locate and use any contractor they wish subject to the approval of CPAT as planning advisers. There is nothing to indicate that RO status would be a pre-condition to such approval, any more that it was in the past when CPAT provided their own list of contractors.

To answer's BAJR's point about whether a Trust director has the power to decide how the Trust undertakes its operations, the answer is yes, subject to the oversight of the trustees.

[vulpes]

Thanks for clearing that up Martin. So, a bit of a non-story then really. CPAT are basically doing what many curators already do. Looks like good practice to me. Locally held lists of contractors present more of a risk of trade restraint.

[BAJR]

Thank you Martin.

If I was to tell you that although the website has no mention of this, - this is now the case. that clients are now only recommended to choose from ROs or MiFAs and the Dyfed will only accept briefs from those who are IfA members, ( actually written into the brief for tenders ) --- does this change matters? And I expect then the Trustees have approved this action.

What Vulpes says is partially true. But this does not get away from the interesting question. Am I incompetant if I am not in the IfA and competent if I am? To me, it SHOULD be about a company having RO status or MIFA membership to be seen as a sign of competence that would make a client think... I will choose these over another company which is not. Surely there must be a confidence in being an RO.. that it means something? that meing a Member of the IfA is by itself enough to show that you are 'better' why the need to ensure that there is no other group .... ? As to the list thing. well you could ask CPAT why they have a locally held list of only IfA contractors. ?


( pity Vulpes had to add some pointless jibe - if only he could have curbed that insertion the rest of the post would have been great )

[Martin Locock]

I don't know of thedetails here, but there seems a clear distinction between any person or organisiation giving professional advice and imposing a mandatory requirment.
If anyone asked me for advice I would advise them to use an RO or MIfA. If that is what CPAT are doing that is their choice.

I don't understand what you mean by Dyfed 'accepting briefs' from IfA members, or writing it into tenders. Dyfed writes briefs and does not normally commission archaeological work.

[vulpes]

I'm not sure what you mean BAJR by pointless jibe? This is a bit of a non-story.

As for:

ask CPAT why they have a locally held list of only IfA contractors. ?

As Martin has indicated, this isn't the case. CPAT wisely don't have a list at all, but direct people to the list held by the professional body for archaeologists. I can't see anything controversial about that. This thread seems a bit pointless to me really as we've now established that the title has no substance behind it. I may return when there's actually something new to discuss.

[kevin wooldridge]

This is a bit of a non-story..... CPAT wisely don't have a list at all, but direct people to the list held by the professional body for archaeologists....This thread seems a bit pointless to me really as we've now established that the title has no substance behind it...

To which it should be added that in the 31 years or so that IfA has been established (and despite any fluff or disgruntlement here and anywhere else regarding restraint of trade, cabals, illegality etc), nobody has challenged in a judicial arena, a curator's decision to recommend or not recommend an IfA member or RAO. Remembering also before 1990 and the IfA decision not to support the geographical integrity of established archaeological bodies, that there were plenty of de facto monopolies and 'cozy' arrangements in UK archaeology. Again all exisiting, functioning and administered without judicial challenge....

I think as Vulpes suggests the title of the thread (as written) has no substance behind it, but of course fear over the future of archaeology in general probably still has a little steam left in the boiler.....

[Dinosaur]

...nobody has challenged in a judicial arena...

Doubt most of the commercial archaeological outfits in Britain could afford to, as IFA well knows...:face-thinks: