The law specifically specifies which violations of labor duties by an employee should be classified as gross:

a) absenteeism (absence from the workplace without good reason for more than 4 hours in a row during the working day);

b) appearance at work in a state of alcoholic, drug or other toxic intoxication;

c) disclosure of secrets protected by law (state, commercial, official and other), which became known to the employee in connection with the performance of his labor duties;

d) committing at the place of work theft (including small) someone else's property, embezzlement, deliberate destruction or damage, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force or by a resolution of a body authorized to apply administrative penalties;

e) violation by the employee of labor protection requirements, if this violation entailed grave consequences (industrial accident, accident, catastrophe) or deliberately created a real threat of such consequences.

This list of gross violations is exhaustive and is not subject to broad interpretation.

Absenteeism

Truancy is one of the most serious violations of labor discipline. Therefore, the legislation enshrined the right of the employer to terminate the employment contract with the employee even for a single absenteeism without a valid reason. Absenteeism is a failure to appear for work during the entire working day or shift or absence from work (the employee is outside the workplace) without a valid reason for more than 4 hours in a row during the working day. Law of June 30, 2006 No. 90-FZ supplemented the concept of absenteeism with such a form as absence from the workplace without good reason during the entire working day (shift), regardless of its (her) duration. This addition was made due to the fact that in some cases, by the decision of the employer, the duration of the working day can be set less than 4 hours. less than 4 hours, his actions should be regarded as absenteeism.

Special cases of truancy are also:

- leaving work without good reason by a person who has entered into an employment contract for an indefinite period, without notifying the employer about dismissal of his own free will;

- leaving work without good reason before the expiration of the two-week notice period of voluntary dismissal;

- abandonment of work without a valid reason by a person who has entered into an employment contract for a certain period, until the expiration of the contract or before the expiration of the warning period for early termination of the employment contract;

- unauthorized, without the permission of the administration, the departure of an employee on vacation, at least within the time frame specified by the vacation schedule;

- unauthorized, without the consent of the administration, the use of days off (prescribed, for example, for work on weekends), except for cases when the employer, by virtue of the law, did not depend on the decision on the time of granting these days off or rest and he unlawfully refused to provide these days (for example, the refusal to an employee who is a donor to provide, in accordance with part 4 of article 186 of the Labor Code and article 9 of the Law of the Russian Federation of June 9, 1993 No. 5142-1 "On donation of blood and its components", a day of rest directly after each day of donating blood and its components);

- Absenteeism after the transfer of an employee to a new job, performed by the employer in full compliance with applicable law.

However, if the transfer is declared illegal by the judicial authorities, then the dismissal of the employee cannot be considered justified and he must be reinstated in his previous job.

Absenteeism is a failure to show up for work. If the employee did not appear at events that are not related to work (although they are held during working hours), then this cannot serve as a basis for dismissal (for example, the employee did not go to a demonstration, other public events, the employee did not appear at the solemn meeting of a foreign delegation that visited the firm, the employee did not appear at the presentation of a new product of this firm, etc.).

If, when resolving a dispute about the reinstatement of a person dismissed for absenteeism, and recovering average earnings during the forced absence, it turns out that the absence from the workplace was caused by an unjustified reason, but the employer violated the procedure for dismissal, the court, when satisfying the stated requirements, must take into account that the average In such cases, the earnings of a reinstated employee may be recovered not from the first day of absenteeism, but from the date of the issuance of the order of dismissal, since only from that time absenteeism is forced.

As a gross violation of labor duties by the head of the organization (branch, representative office), his deputies should, in particular, regard the failure to fulfill the duties assigned to these persons by the employment contract, which could result in harm to the health of employees or causing property damage to the organization.

Based on the content of paragraph 10 of the first part of Article 81 of the Code, heads of other structural divisions of the organization and their deputies, as well as the chief accountant of the organization, cannot be dismissed on this basis. However, an employment contract with such employees may be terminated for a single gross violation of their labor duties under paragraph 6 of part one of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the acts committed by them fall under the list of gross violations specified in subparagraphs "a" - "e" of paragraph 6 of part the first article 81 of the Code, or in other cases, if it is provided for by federal laws.

Taking into account that Article 3 of the Code prohibits restricting anyone in labor rights and freedoms depending on their official position, and also taking into account that the dismissal of the head of an organization in connection with the adoption by the authorized body of a legal entity either by the owner of the organization's property or by an authorized owner ( body) a decision on early termination of an employment contract is essentially a dismissal at the initiative of the employer and Chapter 43 of the Code, which regulates the peculiarities of the work of the head of an organization, does not contain provisions depriving these persons of the guarantees established by part six of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of a general prohibition on dismissal of an employee at the initiative of the employer during the period of temporary disability and during the period of being on vacation (except in the case of liquidation of the organization or the termination of activities by an individual entrepreneur), the employment contract with the head of the organization cannot be terminated under paragraph 2 Article 278 of the Code during the period of his temporary disability or vacation.

The above explanations are contained in clauses 49, 50 Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 17, 2004 N 2 "On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation").

Judicial practice of dismissal
manager for a single gross violation.

1. The court proceeded from the fact that the fact of a single gross violation of labor duties on the part of the plaintiff took place, grounds for termination of the employment contract under paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation were available. However, upon the dismissal of the plaintiff, the employer violated the established procedure for dismissal, in connection with which the court recognized the dismissal of the plaintiff as illegal and reinstated the plaintiff at work in his previous position.

The plaintiff went to court with a claim for reinstatement at work and the collection of wages during the forced absence, indicating that he was unlawfully dismissed on the grounds established by paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for a single gross violation by the head of the organization of his labor duties.

The requirements were satisfied, it was indicated that when the plaintiff was dismissed, the employer violated the established procedure for dismissal, in connection with which the court recognized the dismissal of the plaintiff as unlawful and reinstated the plaintiff at work in his previous position. In accordance with article 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event that dismissal or transfer to another job is recognized as illegal, the employee must be reinstated in his previous job by the body considering the individual labor dispute. From the meaning of the provisions of Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it follows that the obligation to compensate material damage arises from the employer in connection with illegal dismissal. This payment is essentially a measure of the employer's material liability for the illegal dismissal of an employee (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 28, 2010 N 5-B10-34).

2. The court recognized the dismissal as lawful, since despite the absence of the job description of the head of the bank's branch, the plaintiff, being the head of the branch, was obliged to ensure the implementation of the Regulation on the provision of consumer loans to individuals, to monitor the work of employees subordinate to her in issuing consumer loans

The plaintiff went to court with a claim to recognize the order of dismissal as illegal, reinstatement at work, collection of wages for the time of forced absenteeism, bonuses, compensation for moral damage.

By a court decision, the claim was rejected. The court concluded that despite the absence of the job description of the head of the bank's branch, the plaintiff, being the head of the branch, was obliged to ensure the implementation of the Regulation on the provision of consumer loans to individuals, to monitor the work of employees subordinate to her in issuing consumer loans to individuals and as a manager must take full responsibility for the operation of the branch. Since the plaintiff's official duties were not fulfilled, as a result of illegal actions, expressed in the absence of her control over the issuance of consumer loans, the amount of non-repayment at the time of the check on them amounted to 28,650,000 rubles, which is confirmed by the act of a comprehensive audit.

Thus, the court considered that the plaintiff had committed a gross violation of her labor duties, since the registration and issuance of consumer loans to individuals was carried out in gross violation of the bank's local regulations and these violations were systematic, not one-time (dated April 14, 2011 in the case N 33-8678).

3. The employer did not have grounds for dismissing the plaintiff in accordance with paragraph 10 of part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the plaintiff committed a single gross violation of labor duties - absenteeism, in connection with which a disciplinary measure was applied to him - dismissal

The plaintiff went to court with claims for reinstatement at work, the recognition of the dismissal order as illegal, indicating that his position was not a managerial one, and he could not be dismissed in accordance with paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, indicated that his absence from work was forced, since he was suspended from work.

By the decision of the district court, the claim was denied, the reason for dismissal was changed, indicating the reason for dismissal: part 1, paragraph 6, subparagraph "a" of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation "truancy". Canceling the decision of the court, the court of cassation indicated the following.

The employer had no grounds for dismissing the plaintiff in accordance with paragraph 10 of part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the plaintiff committed absenteeism.

The dismissal cannot be recognized as legal under Art. 81 part 1 paragraph 6 subparagraph "a" of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the removal of the plaintiff from work indicates that there is no reason to believe that the employee has committed a gross violation of labor duties in the form of absence from work throughout the working day (Determination of the St. Petersburg City Court of March 16, 2011 g. N 33-2942 / 2011).

4. Dismissal of the plaintiff for a single gross violation of his job duties under paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation was recognized by the court as illegal, since the dismissal order also does not contain an indication of a specific one-time violation by the plaintiff of labor duties

By order, the plaintiff was dismissed from his position on the basis of paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

From the explanations of the representative of the defendant and the order on the dismissal of the plaintiff, the court established that the reason for the dismissal of the plaintiff was the results of an audit of his activities as the head of the State Security Service of the ITU in the Novosibirsk region. It follows from the inspection report that the plaintiff's violation of his labor and official duties was admitted repeatedly during 2009. However, it does not follow from the specified act for what specific violation the plaintiff was dismissed. The dismissal order also lacks an indication of a specific one-time violation by the plaintiff of labor duties. In these circumstances, the court came to a reasoned conclusion that the dismissal was unlawful (dated March 2, 2011 in case no. 33-3171).

5. Absenteeism cannot serve as grounds for dismissal under paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the law establishes a special rate of dismissal of an employee for absenteeism - clause "a" clause 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff was dismissed simultaneously on two mutually exclusive grounds, meanwhile, the defendant had no legal grounds for dismissing the plaintiff, neither under paragraph 3 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, nor under clause 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

Sh. Filed a lawsuit against the CJSC for recognizing the dismissal order as illegal, changing the wording of the grounds and date of dismissal, collecting wages for the period of work and collecting average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism, recovering compensation for unused vacation.

The court satisfied the claim. It is indicated that two orders were issued to dismiss the plaintiff with the same number and from the same date: of their own free will, under paragraph 3 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and for a single gross violation of labor duties, under paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The court came to the correct conclusion about the illegality of the plaintiff's dismissal, since he was dismissed simultaneously on two mutually exclusive grounds. In addition, the court found that the defendant had no legal grounds for dismissing the plaintiff, neither under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, nor under clause 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The plaintiff did not file a statement of dismissal of his own free will, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to dismiss the plaintiff under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The court of first instance reasonably proceeded from the fact that the commission of truancy cannot serve as a basis for dismissal under paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the law establishes a special rate of dismissal of an employee for absenteeism - clause "a" clause 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Determination of the Moscow City Court of February 2, 2011 in case No. 33-291).

6. Recognizing the dismissal of the plaintiff on the basis of paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the court reasonably proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff held the position of a commercial director, that is, he was not the head of the organization (branch, representative office) or his deputy

The plaintiff went to court to declare the dismissal illegal, to change the wording of the dismissal, to collect wages, and to compensate for moral damage. The requirements were satisfied, while the court decreed the following.

Recognizing the dismissal of the plaintiff on the basis of clause 10 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation unlawful, the court reasonably proceeded from the fact that K. held the position of commercial director, that is, he was not the head of the organization (branch, representative office) or his deputy. In addition, the court was not presented with evidence of K.'s gross violation of his obligations, the failure to fulfill which entailed the infliction of property damage to the organization (Determination of the Moscow Regional Court of December 21, 2010 in case no. 33-24604).

7. The conclusion of the court that the violations committed by the plaintiff in the performance of their official duties are gross in nature are premature because it is based on general assumptions that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the law could result in significant property damage to the municipality

A.L. applied to the court with a claim to declare illegal the imposition of a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal, reinstatement at work as head of the district administration, payment for the time of forced absence and recovery of compensation for moral damage.

By a court decision, the claims were denied. Canceling the specified court decision, the regional court indicated the following.

The court concluded that the above violations committed by A.L. in the performance of their official duties are rude. However, this conclusion is premature.

Indeed, the case file confirms the fact of violation of A.L. the norms of the current legislation in the performance of his official duties. At the same time, the duty to prove that such a violation actually took place and was of a gross nature lies with the employer. As a gross violation of labor duties by the head of the organization (branch, representative office), his deputies should, in particular, regard the failure to fulfill the duties assigned to these persons by the employment contract, which could result in harm to the health of employees or causing property damage to the organization.

In this dispute, the question of the nature of what A.L. violation of their labor obligations when concluding an agreement to perform one-time work on municipal roads actually remained unexplored, while this circumstance is legally significant in the case (Cassation ruling of the Pskov Regional Court of December 23, 2008 in case No. 33-1489).

8. Refusing to satisfy the stated requirements, the court proceeded from the fact that as a result of the inspection it was established that the explosion on the ship took place in connection with the violation of the current regulations imposing on the enterprise the obligation to perform certain actions before the ship was put up for repair. So, the vessel before docking was not properly inspected, an act was not drawn up in which it was necessary to indicate that it was allowed to carry out repair work with the presence of fuel and oil, indicating its quantity, where it is located and what measures safety precautions were to be carried out in this regard. See below "Review of the practice of consideration by the courts of the Kaliningrad region in 2008 of civil cases on reinstatement at work".

For a gross one-time violation of labor duties, an employee can be dismissed on the basis of clause 6 of part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Moreover, it is possible to dismiss on this basis, including: women with children under the age of three; single mothers raising a child under 14 (disabled child under 18); workers raising a child under 14 years old (a disabled child under 18 years old) without a mother. You can't just fire a pregnant woman. This is stated in Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
A one-time gross violation of labor duties is understood as:
a) absenteeism, that is, absence from the workplace without good reason during the entire working day (shift), regardless of its (her) duration, as well as in case of absence from the workplace without good reason for more than four hours in a row during the working day (shift );
b) the appearance of an employee at work (at his workplace or on the territory of the employing organization or facility where, on behalf of the employer, the employee must perform a labor function), in a state of alcoholic, drug or other toxic intoxication;
c) disclosure of secrets protected by law (state, commercial, official and other), which became known to the employee in connection with the performance of his labor duties, including the disclosure of personal data of another employee;
d) committing at the place of work theft (including minor) of someone else's property, embezzlement, deliberate destruction or damage, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force or by a decision of a judge, body, official authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses;
e) violation of labor protection requirements by the employee established by the labor protection commission or the labor protection authorized by the employee, if this violation entailed serious consequences (industrial accident, accident, catastrophe) or deliberately created a real threat of such consequences.
In fact, the grounds for dismissal provided for in paragraphs 5 and 6 of part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, are somewhat similar. After all, both there and there there is some kind of violation of labor obligations, carried out by employees, for which the employer subsequently applies a disciplinary penalty. The difference is that according to clause 5 of part 1 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee commits at least two violations of labor discipline (that is, repeatedly), each of which is not recognized as a gross violation of labor duties. At the same time, the employee has already been reprimanded or reprimanded for the first violation. And for the second repeated violation, a disciplinary penalty is imposed in the form of dismissal.
In a situation where the termination of an employment contract occurs on the basis of clause 6, h. 1, Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee commits only one violation of labor duties, but it is recognized as gross. A closed list of such violations is given above. For such a fault, the employer has the right to immediately (without waiting for the repeated commission of the violation) to apply a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal.
Consider the dismissal procedure and the features that should be taken into account, for each reason separately:

More on topic 2.5. Gross violation of labor duties:

1. 5. One-time gross violation by the head, deputy organization of labor duties
2. 1. Repeated gross violation of the charter of an educational institution within one year
3. Registration of dismissal and payments to employees in case of a single gross violation of labor duties
4. Section XIII. Protection of labor rights and freedoms. consideration and resolution of labor disputes. responsibility for violation of labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms
5. Section XIII. PROTECTION OF LABOR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. CONSIDERATION AND RESOLUTION OF LABOR DISPUTES. LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW AND OTHER ACTS CONTAINING LABOR LAW
6. 13. The emergence of restrictions on the employment of certain types of labor activity established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, other federal law and excluding the possibility of the employee fulfilling his obligations under an employment contract
7. Chapter 62. LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW AND OTHER ACTS CONTAINING LABOR LAW
8. Chapter 62. Responsibility for violation of labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms

What is a one-time gross violation of labor obligations

Somehow another visitor comes into reaction and from the doorway declares: “I was unlawfully fired”. Well, we, the journalists of the central trade union newspaper, are already used to this kind of "good news". They immediately asked: "What article?" Instead of answering, the worker held out her work book. It said that such and such “was dismissed under Art. 81 clause 6 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation ”. It seemed to me that the grounds for dismissing an employee, and even on the initiative of the employer, I knew by heart. And then suddenly ... an unknown article. And so it turned out. The employee was fired under an article that ... is not provided for in the Labor Code. Rather, like this: the Labor Code is, paragraph 6 of Article 81 is, but the employee was dismissed illegally. As can be seen with the naked eye, even the most notorious bribe judge will be forced to reinstate this woman at work by his own decision.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of Art. 81 an employment contract with an employee can be terminated by the employer in cases of a single gross violation of labor duties by the employee. But the employer has no right to interpret the concept of “one-time gross violation” as he pleases. The fact is that the law contains an exhaustive list of what is meant by the concept of “one-time gross violation”. Namely:

A) absenteeism (absence from the workplace without good reason for more than four hours in a row during the working day);

B) appearance at work in a state of alcoholic, drug or other toxic intoxication;

C) disclosure of secrets protected by law (state, commercial, official and other), which became known to the employee in connection with the performance of his labor duties;

D) committing at the place of work theft (including small) someone else's property, embezzlement, deliberate destruction or damage, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force or by a resolution of a body authorized to apply administrative penalties;

E) violation by the employee of labor protection requirements, if this violation entailed grave consequences (industrial accident, accident, catastrophe) or deliberately created a real threat of such consequences.

From all this, the following conclusion can be drawn: if the misconduct committed by the employee does not fall under the above list of five subparagraphs, the employee cannot be dismissed with reference to paragraph 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. That is, for some kind of abstract “one-time gross violation”, without specifying the grounds. And if such a dismissal did take place, it is deliberately illegal, as it happened in our case. If only because an employee can be dismissed only for some types of one-time gross violation of labor duties specified in the law. In accordance with Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, dismissal at the initiative of the employer is one of the types of disciplinary action. The same article prohibits the application of disciplinary sanctions not provided for by federal laws, statutes and discipline regulations.

In general, the case we are describing is by no means unique. We have heard before that employers apply clause 6 of Art. 81 at its own discretion, allowing a broad interpretation of this legal norm. In vain.

For employers themselves, this ground for dismissal concerns even more than the employees themselves. Oddly enough, the article "One-time gross violation" is intended specifically for managers of all stripes, but not for employees. In accordance with paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of a single gross violation by the head of the organization (branch, representative office), as well as his deputies, these persons may be dismissed. Moreover, in this case, it does not matter what kind of offense, what violation was committed, since the Labor Code does not contain an exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal under this article.
Of course, the above does not mean at all that the leader is completely powerless in the face of ... an even higher leader. The fact of committing a single gross violation must, of course, be proven. By the way, in the courts disputes under paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation are considered quite often. And very often managers who have been fired under this article are reinstated at work. Apparently, because the judges demand from the high-ranking official to explain why this violation belongs to the category of “gross”. “Rough - non-rude” - concepts, as you understand, are evaluative, which means they are purely subjective. And if someone found the violation “gross”, it is not at all a fact that the judge will agree with this opinion ...

Ironically, some leaders, being dismissed under paragraph 10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, after reinstatement in court, they return to their previous positions and ... illegally dismiss the employees subordinate to them. For the same reason ... A similar story happened at a municipal enterprise in Nizhny Novgorod. We warn you: with this development of events, employees have much more chances to recover than their leaders ...

The employer can dismiss you in the event of a "one-time gross violation of labor duties by the employee" (Labor Code of Art. 81, part 1, paragraph 6). What is considered a gross violation is listed in the same article. So, you have grossly violated labor obligations if:

a) missed work (absent from the workplace without good reason during the entire working day (shift) or more than four hours in a row during the working day (shift);

b) appeared at work in a state of alcoholic or drug intoxication;

c) divulged a secret protected by law (state, commercial, official, etc.), which became known to you at work;

d) committed theft of someone else's property at work, embezzlement, deliberately destroyed or damaged someone else's property. True, this must be established by a court or other official who is considering cases of administrative offenses.

e) violated labor protection requirements and this either led to an industrial accident, accident, catastrophe, or "deliberately created a real threat of such consequences." This fact must be established by the labor protection commission or the labor protection commissioner.

To dismiss for gross violation of labor obligations, the employer, again, must demand an explanatory note from you. The terms of dismissal are the same, that is, no more than a month later.

Please note that all these violations, again, must be confirmed in writing. For example, in the case of alcoholic intoxication, it is necessary to issue an act signed by witnesses. It is desirable, of course, that at the same time a medical examination was carried out for the state of intoxication. However, the court, even in the absence of the results of such an examination, can be considered a proven fact of intoxication, if the testimony is sufficiently convincing.

To prove absenteeism, an employer usually does the following. The employee's immediate superior draws up an absence from the workplace:

Act No. 236

This act has been drawn up in the presence of the following persons:

1) General Director Bender Ostap Ibrahimovich

2) Driver Kozlevich Adam Kazimirovich

3) Commissioner for hooves Balaganov Alexander Petrovich

The fact that on August 10, 2010 employee Panikovsky Mikhail Samuelevich (courier) was absent from the workplace from 9:00 to 16:30.

At the same time, a memo is written to the head of the organization with a description of the disciplinary offense. As soon as you show up at work, you will be asked to explain about your absence from the workplace and will decide what punishment to apply to you.

Also keep in mind that only absenteeism can be forgiven for a good reason (this was discussed in detail in the previous section). Other gross violations have no "valid reasons".

Remember that a one-time gross violation, which is easy to prove and fix on paper, is a gift for the employer, since in this case the dismissal procedure is maximized and simplified.