The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
That 'one postman' chooses not to claim for certain SA work he does, so as not to lose working tax credit, is of no consequence.
Lounge Lizard wrote:The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
Wouldn't the manager also be in the s**t for that?
Aiding and abetting, therefore allowing/facilitating the fraud to take place, is just as bad is it not?
Lounge Lizard wrote:The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
Wouldn't the manager also be in the s**t for that?
Aiding and abetting, therefore allowing/facilitating the fraud to take place, is just as bad is it not?
Yes, except that the manager might plead ignorance or have some other way of shirking responsibility.
Lounge Lizard wrote:The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
Wouldn't the manager also be in the s**t for that?
Aiding and abetting, therefore allowing/facilitating the fraud to take place, is just as bad is it not?
Yes, except that the manager might plead ignorance or have some other way of shirking responsibility.
Can't see how they can plead ignorance.
They authorise payment to postie A, knowing full well postie B is actually doing the work.
There are also issues around the one actually doing the work not actually being 'insured' at work. Could cause a major problem if they are involved in an accident or some other serious incident, as technically, they aren't supposed to be at work.
Got no doubt that, should something occur, they would deny all knowledge/lie like hell, and lay the blame squarely on the posties in question, and let them suffer any consequences.
Do what you think is right, remember every action has a consequence. In my opinion what is happening is wrong, but having to rely on benefits is a greater wrong. Walk into your local police station and report Tony Blair for war crimes, if they then arrest that piece of scum then maybe do something about "false overtime". I am sorry to say we are living in a corrupt and unequal society which is only going to get worse, would reporting this help to change this trend.
Lounge Lizard wrote:The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
That 'one postman' chooses not to claim for certain SA work he does, so as not to lose working tax credit, is of no consequence.
I think that what 'one postman' is possibly guilty of conspiracy to obtain pecuniary advantage by fraud... Both are technically involved in a Revenue deception/benefit fraud.
newtimes wrote:Do what you think is right, remember every action has a consequence. In my opinion what is happening is wrong, but having to rely on benefits is a greater wrong. Walk into your local police station and report Tony Blair for war crimes, if they then arrest that piece of scum then maybe do something about "false overtime". I am sorry to say we are living in a corrupt and unequal society which is only going to get worse, would reporting this help to change this trend.
I was just commenting that what was happening was wrong, not that either or both of them should be reported for their wrongdoing.
"Cast the first stone"
Yes Tony Blair should be arrested for war crimes but he is even more slippery than my manager
on the bottom of the overtime sheet it does state that any false statements or declarations will be treated as gross misconduct , and that the two postmen involved are a pain-in-the-arse types so I think I shall give the whistle blowers a call
but I am sure the manager will wiggle out of this one as he always dose
Lounge Lizard wrote:The 'other postman' signing for, and thus being paid for, work he has not done is committing a fraudulent act that amounts to gross misconduct.
That 'one postman' chooses not to claim for certain SA work he does, so as not to lose working tax credit, is of no consequence.
I think that what 'one postman' is possibly guilty of conspiracy to obtain pecuniary advantage by fraud... Both are technically involved in a Revenue deception/benefit fraud.
The fact that someone is doin a few hours OT and signing it to someone else's name is the least of this countries problems
