Appointment of public house manager

hsq

Hey all I am just wondering if anyone can possibly help me out.
I am presently in the process of interviewing candidates to appoint as manager of a business,namely a public house I am about to open up.
As you can imagine I have interviewed lots of candidates and thought I had found the one,a person with an impeccable c.v and lots of experience until I googled his name and came across this on the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement website under disqualifications:

(The Candidate)is disqualified from being appointed or acting as auditor, director or other officer, receiver Liquidator or examiner or being in any way whether directly or indirectly concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of any company or society registered under the Industrial Provident Societies Acts 1893 to 1978 for a period of four years.

I knew he had owned a business before but he told me it did"nt work out for recessionary reasons and so I accepted that and his honesty .I do not know what this means now for me.I would like to allow him a chance as he has a great track record in other places of employment but I do not understand all the legal jargon.I understand that he cannot estabish his own company but I am wondering can I still appoint him as my bar manager or is he prohibited from all and any managerial roles?Can he only act as a bar worker and not be involved in any of the runnings of a business even if it is not his.

Sorry for he long winded post but just in a predicament!Any help would be so appreciated:)

spinga

I believe he can only not act as a director for the company, If he is a PAYE employee.
(call him manager or what you like) he will be running a part of your business (ie the bar) he will not be running the company or be liable for any of the responsibilities of a director.
He can not be stopped from holding the managers position as long as he is not a company director, as he will have no corporate responsibilities.

I stand to be corrected but an ex boss of mine ( an area manager not a director) was serving a ban whilst he was my boss, he now owns and runs a similar company as his ban is up a few years.

hsq

Thank you so much Spinga for your consideration of my query.
I thought exactly what you said but then a colleague of mine pointed out to me earlier that under the disqualification it states he cannot be involved "directly or indirectly"involved in the "formation,promotion or management of any company or society ....."
In essence he will be involved in all of the above except "formation" by virtue of being appointed manager of the business. He is the best candidate by a long shot that I ave interviewed but I would be liable if it in fact is illegal to appoint him to such a position.
It is not very clearly worded for us mere mortals to comprehend,or maybe its just me!

RATM

Spinga is correct as far as I know. You are appointing him manager of the business so he has no responsibilities like a director does under the 1963 Companies Act.

You should get to the bottom of what happened his previous business and why he was struck off as a director. There is a seed of doubt as to his honesty here, "recessionary reasons" tells you absolutely zilch and as a recruiter myself I'd be probing deeper into those reasons.

He might come across as an excellent candidate but how would you see him if you found out he has defrauded the VAT man or done a runner on suppliers ? If he did that then the likelihood of him defrauding you or stealing a sum of money shoots way up in my opinion. Also do you know that he is debt free from his last business or does he still owe people money ? If he does then taking from Jim to pay Paul is also a possibility.

I did 10+ years in the bar management game myself and one lesson you'll soon learn is that there are thieves in the industry, they come across as amazingly professional workers and can run a pub really well, be friendly with customers, etc. . But all of that is a cover to steal from you, be it direct out of the till or by bringing their own stock onto the premises and selling it for their own profit.

Let your manager run the pub for sure but keep a very tight eye on your takings. And be seen by the staff to do so too- opportunity makes a thief so ensure your own actions (or more to the point inaction) don't create the opportunity for a thief to thrive in.

Sorry if all this sounds cynical but I am just trying to open your eyes here. If you find a great bar manager then treat him well but always keep your guard up as in pubs sometimes things are not always as they seem and many publicans have found this out to their detriment.

DubTony

hsq wrote: »

Thank you so much Spinga for your consideration of my query.
I thought exactly what you said but then a colleague of mine pointed out to me earlier that under the disqualification it states he cannot be involved "directly or indirectly"involved in the "formation,promotion or management of any company or society ....."
In essence he will be involved in all of the above except "formation" by virtue of being appointed manager of the business. He is the best candidate by a long shot that I ave interviewed but I would be liable if it in fact is illegal to appoint him to such a position.
It is not very clearly worded for us mere mortals to comprehend,or maybe its just me!

Typically in business terms promotion of a company would be done by the directors. He won't be promoting the company by running ads, or hiring people, or helping to drum up business. He'll be promoting the business. A totally different thing. He won't be managing the company as such as he won't be responsible for making corporate returns etc, he'll be managing the business on your behalf.

All of the above refer to the running of a company as opposed to a business. An entirely different thing. For example it would not be illegal for him to set up as a sole trader and operate his own pub, he is only barred from operating (managing promoting) a COMPANY and all that entails.

If he's the right man for the job, all you need to be concerned with is his business acumen and his honesty and can he do the job.

Good luck.

edit: The INDIRECTLY part above is to ensure that people don't set up companies using friends and relatives as directors simply to keep their names off the paperwork.

hsq

Thank you for your detailed reply RATM.
Everything you say makes sense and I do think I will have to re-evaluate my initial enthusiasm to employ this individual.I did question him about his former business and debts that may be still outstanding etc,he said himself and his partner re mortgaged a property in order to pay a bank loan and I did appreciate his honesty as I said previously.As with regards other debts,he did not elaborate but for all I know he could owe substantial amounts of money to suppliers, even the same suppliers which I am hoping to use and that presents all kinds of problems evidently.
I know what you mean about keeping an eye on him and that is something I cannot pro actively do with trying to maintain other businesses too.It would defeat the purpose of appointing him as a manager.
Now I have had time to think about it and take into account everyones advise it actually makes me angry that someone disqualified by the director of corporate enforcement can even actually manage someone elses business then.I actually cannot believe that if I had not taken the time to google his name and do a detailed search that I would now be in blissful unawareness and I would have placed all my trust in someone who could have a string of debtors in his trail and who may have acted dishonestly in his former roll as director of a company.How can the director of corporate enforcement allow this to happen?these loose disqualification laws could result in the detrament of the business of an innocent party.Its all wrong and the disqualified people themselves have no obligation to inform a potential employer of their indiscretions.It makes me sick,cannot believe it has taken me so long to wake up and smell the coffee!!

hsq

Thanks a million DubTony,I appreciate the explanation,it is alot clearer now,It still has angered me but I think I will be taking him out of the running now for the position.The seed of doubt has been planted and I know there is someone better suited to the position than someone who I am concerned about.

Chet Zar

Hi OP,

It might sound obvious, but instead of posting on a forum and getting worked up, why don't you just call the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and just ask them what this means?

The way it is written it sounds really grave and serious, but it would still be worth sounding it out with them, as to what this definition really entails.

I would definitely be reluctant though, either way.

Antho1966

Hi op

I would agree with everthing RATM and Chet Zar says. I do not trust this person. I would even go as far as to say that he has just left the bar business again.

The next line is a quote from yourself and it troubles me even more:

"""" I know what you mean about keeping an eye on him and that is something I cannot pro actively do with trying to maintain other businesses too.It would defeat the purpose of appointing him as a manager. """

This is a cash business and you
a: need a stock-controller to keep an eagle eye on the business especially at the start
b:At least monthly accounts

Otherwise you will not be posting about the bar business again.

I have seen too many of you getting yere fingers burnt. The bar business is not for the faint hearted.

Regards

and best of luck.

keeva1995

Hi hsp
if your are still looking for a barmanager.i have 20 years experience.working in ireland,london and germany.moving back to ireland next week and looking for a barmanager job.(i know what people are saying are you mad moving back to ireland).
i can e-mail you my cv if your still looking for a good barmanager.

BornToKill

Failure to file company returns.