The High Court has found An Post liable for workplace bullying experienced by employee Catherine Hurley after her return to work following a 2006 incident with a co-worker. The court found that local management knew of the hostility and did not take meaningful steps to address it. It has not yet assessed damages or resolved a claim for loss of earnings.
Ms Hurley’s claim arose from an incident at the Cork Mail Centre on 26 July 2006. She said a co-worker, identified in the judgment as Mr J., angrily threw postal packets into her trolley, came close to her face and swore at her. The court recorded that there was no other physical contact. Mr J. was suspended after the incident and later dismissed; the stated reason for his dismissal was an unsatisfactory attendance pattern.
After Ms Hurley returned to work in August, she said colleagues ignored and isolated her, removed pens she needed to sign in and slammed doors in her face. Several colleagues disputed her account. The judge accepted Ms Hurley’s evidence, finding that resentment over Mr J.’s treatment had created an atmosphere in which she was subjected to sustained social exclusion and repeated petty humiliations.
The judgment describes staff support for Mr J., including a petition signed by 96 of 132 employees and an hour-long stoppage. The judge found that local managers knew of the tensions and Ms Hurley’s difficulties. They advised her that the situation would pass, but did not warn staff against the conduct or encourage her to use the employer’s formal bullying complaints process. The judge found that this left her without effective support.
The court accepted medical evidence that Ms Hurley developed post-traumatic stress disorder and that her neck symptoms were likely associated with it. It found that the repeated treatment by colleagues contributed to injury to her health, and that such harm was reasonably foreseeable by the employer.
The judge rejected the argument that the claim was out of time, finding that Ms Hurley only became aware of a significant injury linked to the bullying after psychiatric assessment in early 2008. The court separately concluded that An Post was not liable for the original assault: the earlier disciplinary incidents involving Mr J. did not establish that the employer had breached its duty of care or was vicariously liable for that assault.
The court found An Post liable for the bullying and harassment by co-workers that it knew about and failed to address meaningfully. The judgment does not set damages. The judge said further submissions were needed on how to deal with the outstanding loss-of-earnings claim before damages could be assessed.