John Ward v an Post

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mark Heslin
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 470
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 8121 P.]
• Year: 2021
• Court: High Court

Between

John Ward

Plaintiff

and

An Post

Defendant

[2021] IEHC 470

[2017 No. 8121 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Mark Heslin delivered on the 11 ^th day of June, 2021

1 . The Plaintiff is a postman who is employed by the Defendant, having commenced his employment straight after he left school, in 1980. The Plaintiff issued a personal injuries summons on 08 September 2017. Having regard to the pleaded case which refers to events going back to 1996 and the 11 days of witness testimony, it has been necessary in this judgment to analyse evidence given in respect of events covering well over two decades, much of which evidence was contentious, and to make findings of fact, where appropriate. This has resulted in an extremely lengthy judgement but, in order to do justice to the pleaded case and the issues in dispute, I have seen no alternative. For ease of reference, I have employed appropriate headings and I have tried to set out this court's analysis of the evidence in chronological order.

The period 1996 – 2016

2 . In the said personal injuries summons (hereinafter “the Summons”) the following is pleaded under the heading of “particulars of wrong alleged against the Defendant”:-

“ 5. The Defendant, its servants or agents, were guilty of negligence, breach of contract, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty in causing, permitting or allowing the Plaintiff to be the subject of bullying and harassment by a number of the Defendant's over a the (sic) lengthy period from August 1996 to December 2016. During this period the Plaintiff was unlawfully targeted in a campaign of intimidation, accusations, bullying, harassment, inappropriate commentary, personal remarks, taunting and insults, mismanagement, false promises, and psychological trauma in his workplaces which resulted in acute stress/serious personal injury and hospitalisation and subsequent medical incapacity in December 2016;

6. The Defendant, its servants or agents, were guilty of negligence, breach of contract, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty and breach of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 in treating the Plaintiff as if he were guilty of absenteeism, while he was on certified sick leave due to a certified medical condition, namely severe stress and depression, and placing the Plaintiff on and escalating him through those sections of a workplace policy designed to deal with absenteeism, and failing to take account of his certified medical leave, the communications of his treating doctor, and failing to refer the Plaintiff to the Chief Medical Officer or other qualified medical doctor for a medical report and assessment;

7. The aforesaid was occasioned by reason of breach of duty (including statutory duty), breach of contract, vicarious liability, and/or nuisance on part (sic) of the Defendant, its servants and agents and by reason of which the Plaintiff suffered severe personal injury, loss, damage and expense;

8. The Defendant, its servants or agents, has been guilty of further negligence, further breach of contract, further breach of duty and breach of statutory duty in failing to take any or any adequate steps properly to support the Plaintiff in his employment and to prevent the aforesaid bullying and harassment occurring in circumstances where it knew or ought to have known of his vulnerability to same on foot of various reports of same to his line manager”.

As is clear from the pleadings aforesaid, a period of time beginning some 25 years ago is said to be relevant to the Plaintiff's claim. Pages 3 to 7 inclusive, of the Summons set out details under the heading “ The circumstances relating to the commission of the wrongs by the Defendant, its servants or agents”. The case made by the Plaintiff includes the following pleas, beginning on p. 3 of the Summons:-

“ 9. Since approximately 1996, the Plaintiff has been the subject of ridicule and vicious rumours promulgated by a number of colleagues as well as bullying and harassment and this has had a significant and lingering effect on his mental health. The Plaintiff has felt undermined and unsupported in particular by his line manager who refused to deal with his issues at all and indeed denied that there were any workplace issues for over twenty years, only admitting to same some weeks before his own retirement as well as HR who has dismissed and refused to deal with his complaints continuously;

10. Soon after the Plaintiff got married he attended a social work event in or around July/August 1996 and shortly after this event a rumour was circulated within the workplace that accused the Plaintiff of sleeping with the girlfriend of a colleague that night. These rumours were shared in the depot by a Mr. Eddie Baker, on several occasions in front of other colleagues. The rumours continued for a number of years and were expressly and directly repeated to the Plaintiff by Mr. Justin Cullen in or around December 2000;

11. Following the Christmas break, in January 2001, the Plaintiff, who could not tolerate the promulgation of the rumour further, raised the issue with his inspector/line manager, Mr. Leo Kearns, who was the Delivery Services Manager (DSM) at that time, and confirmed that it was Mr. Baker who was continuing to spread the distressing rumour. Mr. Kearns outlined that he would invite Mr. Cullen to his office and ask him not to repeat these rumours. However, no further action was taken;

12. Bullying of the Plaintiff, which took the form of constant jibes, comments, derision and repeated attempts to make him the butt of jokes in the section took place. The Plaintiff continued to raise issues with his manager in respect of his treatment by colleagues and the continuing comments and harassment of foregoing (sic) nature to which he was subject with Mr. Kearns both in and outside of work and informally again on a golf outing in 2005 as the situation had not been resolved. However, yet again no action was taken by the Plaintiff's inspector to ameliorate the situation;

13. In May 2005 the Plaintiff was delivering post in Stillorgan when he discovered opened post in the back of driver's seat (sic). He contacted his inspector Leo Kearns immediately and was told to return to the depot. The Plaintiff told no third parties about finding the letters. When the Plaintiff arrived at the depot he was immediately asked by John Walsh, postal sorter, as to how many letters did he find.

14. A third party driver admitted to opening the letters. However, it was the Plaintiff whom was (sic) constantly interrogated by his colleagues in that regard. The Plaintiff was very upset and distressed that he had been named as the person who was viewed as getting another colleague into trouble and that the fact it was he who had found the letters had become common knowledge at work. The Plaintiff contacted the third party driver, who by that stage was on leave, and this driver informed the Plaintiff that it was his inspector who had disclosed who had found the letters. As expected, this cause caused great stress to the Plaintiff who at this juncture came to realise it was unlikely that his inspector would ever resolve his ongoing workplace issues in circumstances where he was in fact part of and exacerbating same.

15. In 2006 a second issue arose involving a bag of letters when Mr. John Hennessey (Inspector) DSM Dun Laoghaire, called the Plaintiff into his office and asked the Plaintiff to bring a sack full of letters that had been opened back to Mr. Kearns in Blackrock as they were found in Blackrock but handed into Dun Laoghaire by a member of the public. The Plaintiff dropped the letters to Mr. Kearns and again did not mention anything about the incident to any third parties.

16. The next morning an informal meeting was called, one (sic) of the Plaintiffs' colleagues Mr. Kieran Downer (Driver), in the driver section of the sorting office and he who outlined (sic) that Mr. Kearns had informed him that letters had been found and that people should ‘keep an eye out’. The Plaintiff was shocked that such information would be suppressed and then circulated among the drivers in a manner that he did not perceive to be for the benefit of anyone other than those who might be careless enough to lose and/or open letters.

17. Following this unofficial meeting, the Plaintiff was again subject to questioning from the other drivers and had his van searched on occasion with the intimation being made clear to him that he was responsible for the letters being found and that this was not a positive find as it should have been considered. The Plaintiff found this atmosphere in which he was working to be utterly oppressive and intimidating and untenable.

18. Over the course of the next number of years the Plaintiff was bullied on a constant basis in work by Mr. Eddie Baker, John Cassoni and Mr. Kieran Downer, who would should derogatory comments to each other about the Plaintiff whilst pointing and jeering at him in full view of other colleagues. In particular, the Plaintiff was habitually accused of setting his work colleagues up to be sacked, stealing post and packages, sleeping with his colleague's girlfriend.

19. Unfortunately he had no recourse in the workplace in circumstances where his direct line manager had made it clear he was not going to do anything to ameliorate the situation, and the next manager in the hierarchy, the Area Manager, was a friend of the same line manager and had worked closely for many years as a postman with the two main perpetrators of the harassment.

20. In 2009, at the end of his tether, the Plaintiff of his own volition contacted Mr. Peter Maher of occupational support who called out to the Plaintiff's home. However, this appointment merely resulted in the Plaintiff being asked to consider a transfer rather than suggesting any resolution or investigation into the issues he was facing in the workplace.

21....