Rowland v an Post
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] IEHC 272 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2011] 7 JIC 0603 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 06 July 2011 |
[2011] IEHC 272
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Roderick Murphy dated the 6th day of July, 2011
The plaintiff operates a small retail shop and post office in the village of Bofeenaun, Ballina, Co. Mayo which is family run business with no employees. He was appointed sub-postmaster by the defendant company (the company) in 1974.
The plaintiff's relationship with the defendant is governed by the provisions of the Postmaster's Manual. Although postmasters are independent contractors they are represented by a union, the Irish Postmaster's Union ("IPU") who conducts negotiations and enters agreements on behalf of its members in the discharge of their functions.
The plaintiff had been audited annually by the Audit Department of the defendant without any significant issue until the present proceedings.
The remuneration of the postmaster is based on the volume of transactions and is determined, in part, through a process known as triennial review.
The plaintiff's most recent triennial review of 2007 was delayed. The defendant requested the plaintiff to comment on some anomalies which the plaintiff at first refused. An investigation stage was initiated which was to be followed by a disciplinary hearing.
The Postmaster's Manual does not provide for disciplinary procedure but presumes one to exist. In Clause 2.39 it provides for an appeal available in the event that a postmaster is subjected by the company to disciplinary action. That Clause speaks of:-
"Any appeal against a disciplinary decision"
and,
"the punishment be not of a 'serious' nature."
The plaintiff contends that this is not the language of commercial contracts but rather the language of employment to which the plaintiff is entitled to fair procedures as conceded by the defendant in para. 5 of its defence.
The plaintiff submits that the dispute relates to whether the procedure which the defendant had imposed meets the requirements of natural justice and fair procedures in relation to the dispute.
The issue which gave rise to the application arose in 2007 when the tri-annual review should have been completed in January of that year. When the plaintiff had heard nothing by March, 2007, he wrote and complained about the delay. In a reply dated the 3 rd April, 2007, the defendant stated that they wanted the plaintiff to clarify the increase in post office bank transactions where 25% of those transactions were by persons with the name "Rowland". Issues were also raised about the plaintiff's own business account.
By letter of 16 th April, 2007, the plaintiff explained the increase in transactions as a result of a closure of a number of local bank branches and the travelling bank.
In relation to his own business accounts the plaintiff said he would agree to divulge their purpose in an undertaking that the information would be kept confidential. On the issue of his relationship with all customers, the plaintiff stated he would supply that information provided the account holders had no objection. The plaintiff said that he was arranging to write to each account holder in that regard, however, he was instructed on the 18 th April, 2007, not to write any such letters and he refrained from doing so.
The defendant wrote to the plaintiff on the 1 st June, 2007, justifying the question raised in order to ensure that records "accurately reflect bona fide transactions and that the office is managed in a manner satisfactory to (the company) whenever (the company) has reason for concern, it initiates inquiries into the matter regrettably in other cases we find that, in the judgment of the company and/or the admission of the postmaster, there has been artificial inflation of transactions and/or business mismanagement".
On the 13 th July, 2007, the Contractors Department of the defendant wrote to the plaintiff characterising his answers as evasive. Further, the delay and evasiveness in providing the required information had caused the defendant to further investigate the results of the plaintiff's triennial review.
At that stage, the issue became the subject matter of correspondence between the IPU and the defendant. The IPU confirmed to the plaintiff on the 24 th July, 2007, that his objections were well founded.
On the 1 st December, 2007, there was a meeting in the plaintiff's residence, between the plaintiff and Mr. John Dunleavy, of the Contractors Departments of the defendant. During the meeting, Mr. Dunleavy referred in general to postmasters engaging in certain types of behaviour. In particular allegations were made about postmasters doing their business during lunch hour and splitting charitable donations to increase income. Further contact was to be made within two weeks. When no contact was made, the plaintiff wrote on the 2 nd January, 2008, indicating his dissatisfaction with the meeting and the failure by Mr. Dunleavy to get back to him. On the 22 nd January, 2008, he was informed that Mr. Dunleavy had been on sick leave for two weeks before Christmas.
By letter dated the 28 th November, 2007, solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff wrote to the defendant who, after a holding letter of the 4 th January, 2008, responded on the 28 th March, 2008, in the following terms:-
"Arising from our increasing concerns regarding the office, the company (An Post) has also been examining other aspects of the business conducted there and our preliminary findings heighten our concerns. This information is currently being validated, following which the issues arising from same will be put to Mr. Rowland. Regrettably, it has not been possible to do this earlier primarily due to my personal absence and sick leave. We expect to be writing further to Mr. Rowland in the next two to three weeks on these issues."
A further letter from the defendant was written to the plaintiff on the 27 th June, 2008.
The letter contained two appendixes, the first of which was entitled "Issues of Concern to the Company".
The letter referred to previous communication in relation to the plaintiff's triennial review. It critiques the plaintiff's failure to co-operate with reasonable company inquiries which heightened the concerns in relation to his operation and necessitated a comprehensive investigation of the transaction of business which took longer than anticipated.
The investigation had uncovered a range of extremely irregular payments of business and activities that required comprehensive and credible explanation. The initial concern in relation to Post Office Saving Bank transactions had then broadened into serious concerns over a range of activities designed to artificially maximise the transactions volumes/remuneration of the office and represented a serious abuse of the trust invested by the defendant in the plaintiff. The defendant had written to all postmasters, including the plaintiff, by registered post in April, 2006 warning them of the serious consequences of engaging in such activities. The defendant was extremely concerned over the potential impact that any abuse of transactions would have on its reputation, integrity and trustworthiness in all its dealings with corporate and individual customers who paid for the transactions in question. The company's letter instanced the handling of charitable donations. Significantly the letter stated that:-
"Before making any decision, the company wishes to afford you the opportunity to furnish an explanation and/or to put forward any representations you might wish to make."
The issues of concern were detailed in the first appendix to the letter. The second appendix set out the standard process followed by the defendant, including the appeals process.
The issues of concern claimed under twelve headings detailed issues regarding transactions and raised 35 points by way of questions to the plaintiff.
Three of these related to AIB Bank.
1. AIB SME lodgements
These small and medium enterprises were stated to have been erroneously processed as SME should have been processed as personal lodgements. Transactions seemed to consist almost entirely of €50 or €100 lodgements. In August, 2003 the regional manager had written asking for an explanation. The explanation was deemed unsatisfactory. Nine questions were raised in relation to this matter.
2. AIB (personal PIN and paper) lodgements
These were stated largely to be low value transactions, some of which were after hours transactions suggesting that there might have been an account operated by the plaintiff or a member of his family. The personal account lodgements made in 2007 were included and he was asked to identify which were operated by him or immediate members of his family.
3. AIB Credit Card payments
These appeared to have unusual patterns; in particular, a certain account with 20 transactions to a total value of €575 or an average value of €29 required explanation.
4. Bill Pay transactions - Charity Donations
On a detailed analysis, these raised concerns regarding the volume and value of the transactions (between €2.37 and €4.44) as compared to the average value in peer offices (€17.49 to €37.15) with a sum of similar average value for Auto Contractor lodgements. The appendix referred to a "spike" in the tri-annual revision year to the 30 th September, 2006, where the volume appeared to be six times that of the pre tri-annual review year and the average value was less than half. The plaintiff was asked to explain the reasons for the high volumes and low value, for the extraordinary growth in the volume of transactions from pre tri-annual review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowland v an Post
...J. in the High Court in March, 2011 and, for the reasons set out in a judgment of the 26 th July of that year, ( Rowland v. An Post [2011] IEHC 272) the trial judge dismissed Mr. Rowland's claim. While it will be necessary to analyse the reasoning of the trial judge in more detail the princ......
-
Boyle v an Post
...oral submissions. 11 11. Continuing, however, with an analysis of relevant case-law, the decision of the court in Rowland v. An Post [2011] IEHC 272 seems to this Court to be instructive when it comes to the matter now before it. In that case, the plaintiff argued that (i) he had not been a......