A Perth council building inspector was fairly dismissed after being caught doing ”homers”.
Martin Elphinstone claimed he had been wrongly sacked by Perth and Kinross Council in September last year after an investigation into the activities of building inspectors at the Blairgowrie area office.
They had been privately carrying out building warrant application work for members of the public in return for payment, and the investigation found that Mr Elphinstone continued to do ”homers” after the practice had been outlawed.
An employment tribunal in Dundee was not impressed by Perth and Kinross Council’s investigation into the episode. What appeared to be notes of interviews with witnesses turned out to be composites compiled by different members of staff.
Some witness statements were unsigned, which showed the inquiry was not carried out in accordance with the council’s investigation toolkit.
However, judge Ian McFatridge said the tribunal was not concerned by unsigned statements as, at the end of the day, it was a matter for the council ”but it would have been better if they had been signed”.
Overall, the disciplinary procedure used for Mr Elphinstone was fair, he concluded, and the claim of unfair dismissal was unanimously rejected.
Mr Elphinstone was the third Perth and Kinross Council employee to lose his job in the ”cash for warrants” scandal. He was one of three building standards staff suspended when complaints were received that they were taking cash for drawing up building warrants for work which they would go on to approve themselves.
The tribunal heard the practice had been widespread, and the claimant understood there was nothing untoward, providing building standard regulations were properly and impartially enforced.
In 2007, following an internal audit, council management ordered that ”homers” be stopped as it was inappropriate for staff to prepare applications for building projects in people’s property, which the council would then have to consider.
The judgment explained that in 2010 the council received a complaint alleging impropriety over the way building work was authorised for houses in the Blairgowrie area.
Mr Elphinstone and others were suspended as part of an investigation which involved about 100 people being interviewed. Some were reluctant to speak and some documents supporting applications had not been signed, making it difficult to ascertain which members of staff had been involved in which cases.
The claimant ended up facing eight breaches of the disciplinary code, but only three were found to have been established that he had carried out private work for fees in contravention of council instructions and the code of conduct, and had brought the system into disrepute.
He was given a final written warning and when he returned to work he was told by a superior that the decision at the disciplinary hearing had been ”extremely close”.
The source of the original complaint then made a further complaint, alleging Mr Elphinstone had carried out private work.
Mr Elphinstone admitted being approached by a member of the public but said he passed the work on to someone else.
He faced fresh disciplinary proceedings and was dismissed, an outcome later upheld at an appeal.
Delivering the verdict, the tribunal judge said it was not the tribunal’s role to decide if the claimant was guilty of the allegations against him but only to decide if the disciplinary process was fair.
It was fair, Mr McFatridge concluded, with the claimant having had the opportunity at a five-day hearing to respond to the allegations against him.