Thread by @williamhboney1

On 17th August 2000, a Social Welfare Inspector traveled from his office in West Dublin to a dank smell armpit of a a courier base in Dublin 2. He had been instructed to arrange a meeting with a representative of a well known Company based in West Dublin by the Scope Section >

of the Department of Social Welfare. I had written to the Scope Section and informed them that the Company, my employer, was labeling me as self-employed but that I was an employee. Scope provided 14 written questions to the Social Welfare Inspector to ask a Company >

representative in addition to filling out and witnessing a standard 'Insurability of Employment' form (INS1) which was to be signed by a company representative. 2 men were present for the company at the meeting. 1 was an office employee, the other was the General Manager of the >

Company. The Social Welfare Inspector completed the INS1 form which was signed by the General Manager and witnessed by the Inspector.

On 22nd August 2000, the SW Inspector sent the completed INS1 and a 'Report' he had written back to the Scope Office. In his report, the >

SW Inspector names two men, the first is the same office employee who was at the meeting of the 17th August, the second was an Operations Manager who was not present at the meeting on the 17th August. The Social Welfare Inspector did not name or refer to the General Manager in >

his report.

On 6th September 2000, the Scope Section issued a determination that I was an employee and not self-employed as the Company had claimed. This decision was immediately appealed to the Social Welfare Appeals Office by the Company.

On 23rd January 2001, the Appeal >

began in the SWAO. Present was the Scope Deciding Officer and an aide, 2 union representatives, the Social Welfare Inspector and me. The company was represented by the Operations Manager named in the 'Report', the General Manager who had signed the INS1 form, a Barrister, a >

Solicitor and a company legal rep. The SWAO Deciding Officer instructed everybody to introduce themselves. The Operations Manager and the General Manager clearly identified themselves as did the Social Welfare Inspector. Everybody knew clearly who everybody else was. The Appeal >

was adjourned on the insistence of the Scope Section Deciding Officer who was unaware that the company would be represented by a formidable legal team.

On 1st March 2001, the Appeal Hearing reconvened. This time Scope came fully armed with a Senior Counsel and Solicitor from >

the State Solicitors Office. They presented a detailed written submission to the SWAO stating that no new fact nor point of law had been presented and that the SWAO was bound to hold that I was an employee. The Company lineup had one change, the Operations Manager was not >

present. The SWAO Deciding Office informed everybody that the Operations Manager was indisposed. The SWAO then dismissed the INS1 forms as 'Not particularly instructive' and instructed the Social Welfare Inspector to read from his 'Report' which attributed evidence only to the >

Operations Manager on behalf of the Company. This the Social Welfare Inspector did face to face across the table from the General Manager.

The hearing lasted half a day.

On the 5th of June 2001, the Social Welfare Appeals Office overturned the Scope Section decision. >

On 23rd October 2001, I attended at the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I had made a case to the EAT that I had been constructively dismissed. The EAT would hear the case and in conjunction with the constructive dismissal case, my employment status would also be determined. >

The Appeal took 3 full days across several weeks. Every detail of my employment was thoroughly examined. It was during this Constructive Dismissal hearing in the EAT that the strangest thing happened ....

The Company had the exact same legal representation as it had in the SWAO>

and the Operations Manager and the General Manager were both present. As I introduced the 'Report' written by the Social Welfare Inspector, the Company's barrister objected. The Barrister said that the Operations Manager had not met or spoken to the Social Welfare Inspector. He >

insisted that it could not be used as evidence. The Chairperson of the EAT was taken aback, she commented that it could not be used as evidence and that unfortunately the Department of SW was not present to answer questions raised by the report.

Following this revelation, I

contacted a senior SW Official by telephone. He told me that the Company's denial of the SW Inspectors Report was 'Bizarre'.

On the 18th March 2002, I followed up with a letter to my local TD, at that time it was John Bruton. I told John what had happened in the EAT and the

Department official's one word response.

Shortly after, the Employment Appeals Tribunal issued their Judgement. I was an employee and I had been constructively dismissed for seeking a Scope Section determination on my employment status.

It was a unanimous decision, >

the EAT had been a panel with a senior counsel as chairperson, not a lone civil servant appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the SW Minister.

In response to his queries, John Bruton received a reply from the Dept. SW which said I was mistaken about what I heard first >

hand in the EAT.

I contacted the Garda, as far as I can remember it was the National Bureau of Fraud Investigation. As I started to explain over the telephone I was informed that unless the Dept. SW said there was an issue to investigate they would take no action.

>

The Company appealed the Judgement of the Employment Appeals Tribunal to the Circuit Court.

On 14th October 2002, I attended at the Circuit Court, I was representing myself, the Company came armed with full legal team.

I was going to lose, that was a given. SWAO decisions >

stand unless appealed to the High Court, EAT decision only have to be appealed to the Circuit Court. The SWAO has 'jurisdiction'. I knew I was going to lose, I could be faced with huge costs I couldn't afford. But I was going in, for one purpose and one purpose alone. I'd >

summonsed the Social Welfare Inspector to Appear. I was going to put him on the stand and rattle the truth loose.

As I arrived in the Court I was approached by the SW Inspector, he told me he had to be somewhere else and that he couldn't stay. I informed him that he had no >

choice and that he was going on the stand. The case was underway for a number of hours before I called the Social Welfare Inspector to the stand. I established he was a Social Welfare Inspector and that he had investigated this particular case. I handed him a copy of his >

report of 22nd August 2000 which he had read aloud in the SWAO.

"Is this your report where you state you spoke to (Operations Manager?" I asked.

"Yes" he replied in a barely audible whisper.

The Company barrister objected.

The Judge allowed me to continue.

>

"Did you speak to (named) Operations Manger?"

The Social Welfare Inspector was doubled over in the chair, "Yes" he whispered again, the Company's barrister objected again.

When asked by the judge to explain why he was objecting, the barrister again stated that the >

that the Operations Manager had not meet or spoken to the Social Welfare Inspector.

The Judge instructed the Social Welfare Inspector to point to the person he had spoken to.

The Social Welfare Inspector pointed to the General Manager of the Company.

There were a number of >

official from Revenue and Social Welfare in the court room watching the proceedings. The Judge spoke over my head to one of these officials and stated that this matter would require another day in court.

The Report could not be used as evidence in the Circuit Court. >

On the 8th of May 2003, I wrote again to John Bruton TD. I explained in detail to John what had happened in the Circuit Court. We even spoke by telephone.

John wrote to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.

On 24th June 2003, the SWAO replied to John Bruton TD. This time I was >

not 'Incorrect', this time the Social Welfare Appeals Office claimed -

"The Social Welfare Inspector confused the identity of two of the company officials that he interviewed this did not materially affect the details of the evidence recorded" >

The Confused Identity excuse doesn't hold water -

On the 10th of August 2000 the Social Welfare Inspector told me face to face that he knew the General Manager and had met him previously.

The General Manager signed the INS1 form and the Social Welfare Inspector witnessed that>

signature with his own. There is proven fact that at this point, the Social Welfare Inspector was fully aware of whom he was taking to and taking evidence from.

Twice the General Manager identified himself to the SW Inspector in the SWAO. The Social Welfare Inspector sat >

opposite the General Manager and read aloud from his Report repeatedly naming a person he never met or spoke to when the person he had actually spoken to sat opposite him.

The true factual position is that the Social Welfare Inspector's report was false and could not be used >

in any tribunal or court but was, despite overwhelming evidence, accepted by the SWAO.

This case threatened a secret tax deal that had been agreed between the Revenue Commissioners and a representative for all Courier Companies in the Burlington Hotel less than 12 months >

before I approached the Scope Section.

The Revenue Commissioners and the Dept. SW have been fully aware since at least 2000 that they have been misclassifying workers as self employed for more than 20 years. It is secret state aid to selected industries.

This has come to >

https://twitter.com/williamhboney1/status/1059582266849026050