Finance

Lounging tax official can be fired

The man had gone to court because he did not agree with his dismissal. He was ill and his actions could not be blamed on him. At the hearing, he wanted to show medical records. The judge did not allow this because he had submitted it too late.

dereliction of duty

The man worked for the tax authorities from November 2006 to November 2019, in his last position as a tax specialist in Utrecht. Between 2017 and October 2018, he was absent or not logged in for 440 hours and he could not justify what he had done during that time.

He also wrongly asked for and received a fixed travel allowance to travel from home to work every day and used a business OV chip card for private travel. Enough reason for his employer to want to fire him because of, among other things, dereliction of duty. That happened at the end of 2019.

According to the fired official, he should not have been fired. There would be no serious breach of duty. His employer is also said to have acted carelessly and there were several incidents in the workplace that made him feel unsafe. The IRS would have done nothing about this.

According to the man, an incorrect calculation had been made in advance for the travel costs, and he had also followed the advice of the general practitioner and company doctor regarding his illness. The business trips also included work travel from one office to another and appointments with the company social worker.

Summer School

In addition, he would have registered his hours correctly, but he was partly present at a Summer School and his boss would no longer approve his leave requests. In addition, he could only register nine working hours in a day in the system, while sometimes he made more.

According to the judge, there is no reason to assume that the time registration is incorrect. The man also could not indicate how many hours had been misregistered or how things could go wrong with 440 hours. He would not have behaved as a good civil servant. The fact that the man was ill does not change the situation, the judge said. The dismissal therefore stands.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also
Close
Back to top button