The High Court has declined to restrain An Post from proceeding to a disciplinary hearing involving postmaster Thomas Rowland, ruling that the company may proceed under its proposed procedure with two nominated decision-makers.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on 6 July 2011, concerned An Post’s inquiries into transactions at the post office operated by Mr Rowland in Bofeenaun, Co Mayo. The company raised 12 areas of concern in June 2008, including bank lodgements, bill payments, stamp sales, savings transactions and activity outside scheduled opening hours. It questioned whether some transactions had artificially increased the office’s volume and remuneration. Those were the company’s concerns, not findings by the court.
Mr Rowland argued that he could not answer meaningfully without the documents and data underlying the concerns. He also objected to the proposed process on grounds including lack of formal charges, no opportunity to cross-examine accusers, alleged pre-judgment and bias among those involved. He sought to stop An Post proceeding unless those concerns were addressed.
An interim court order in January 2009 barred An Post from holding a disciplinary hearing or making a determination. In January 2010, the parties agreed that the company would conduct a fact-finding exercise only, with no disciplinary action, and that Mr Rowland would respond on that basis. He sent a detailed reply in February 2010. An Post then said it remained concerned about possible artificial inflation of business, services outside hours and alleged non-cooperation, and warned that termination of the contract could be considered.
The court distinguished the investigation from a disciplinary hearing, which had not yet begun. It held that An Post had set out the issues in enough detail for Mr Rowland to respond and that cross-examination did not arise at the inquiry stage, where there were no witnesses to test. It also noted that the company had agreed that Mr Ryan and Mr Ennis, rather than the people previously proposed, would conduct any disciplinary hearing.
The court found no satisfactory evidence of unfair procedure at that stage and declined to intervene. It said An Post was entitled to proceed to a disciplinary hearing under the procedure set out in its June 2008 letter, with Mr Ryan and Mr Ennis involved. The judgment did not decide whether Mr Rowland had engaged in any improper conduct or determine the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.