The High Court has restrained An Post from hearing a former post office clerk’s appeal against dismissal until the company states what serious misconduct it found against him.
In a judgment delivered on 12 May 2016, Mr Justice David Keane ruled that Finbarr O’Leary had made a strong and clear case on that specific issue. The order pauses the appeal only until An Post provides the statement. The judge said it should be possible to do so within a short time so the appeal can proceed promptly.
O’Leary had worked for An Post since 1993 and was dismissed by letter dated 21 January 2015 on the stated ground that the company had lost trust and confidence in him. The dismissal followed an investigation into 39 transactions flagged as suspicious by an internal review of Department of Social Protection payments at Cork’s GPO. The transactions were processed under his computer user name between September 2009 and October 2013.
Two customers interviewed by An Post said they had not signed receipts for certain payments recorded in their names. O’Leary denied taking money, defrauding customers, signing receipts for customers or deliberately destroying receipts. These were allegations and responses in the disciplinary process; the High Court was considering an application for interim injunctions, not deciding whether misconduct had occurred.
An Post dismissed O’Leary after a disciplinary process. He appealed and requested an oral hearing. His solicitors also sought details of a company benchmarking exercise and a definition of “trust and confidence”. The judge rejected his other grounds for stopping or restricting the appeal, including complaints about the interviews, the absence of an agreed appeal protocol, the handling of customer statements and disclosure of benchmarking data. He noted that O’Leary had not asked to cross-examine the two customers or asked An Post to put questions to them under its procedure.
The judge held that an employee appealing a dismissal must be told what charges the employer found proved. Saying only that trust and confidence had been lost was not enough to identify a finding of serious misconduct that could be meaningfully appealed.
The case had not progressed beyond the issue and service of a plenary summons. O’Leary’s underlying claim sought reinstatement and damages for breach of contract and mental distress. The court did not determine that claim or order reinstatement. O’Leary remained suspended on full pay pending his appeal, the judgment said.