Postman sacked for allegedly 're-posting' mail attempts to get job back
Published 16/09/2015 | 18:48
A 31-YEAR-OLD postman, who was sacked for allegedly “re-posting” his mail instead of delivering it, today asked a judge to give him his job back.
Gary Boyle denied having re-posted mail into a post box on his Coolock, Co Dublin, route. The High Court heard he had failed to overturn his dismissal through an internal appeal process after An Post had found him “guilty of gross misconduct.”
Mr Justice Max Barrett heard that an inquiry set up to stamp out non delivery of mail had been carried out by An Post investigation branch members.
Barrister Stephen O’Sullivan, counsel for Boyle, told the court that his client had not been told during interviews who had suspected him of wrong doing and who had conducted the internal probe.
Father of three Boyle had asked the court for injunctions directing his reinstatement as a postman and preventing An Post from hiring someone for his position. He had also sought the payment of his salary by An Post pending the hearing of his legal action.
Judge Barrett, after having read affidavits and having heard legal submissions, said he would give his decision next week.
Mr O’Sullivan had told the court that Mr Boyle, who had been a postman for several years, was one of seven siblings working for An Post.
Boyle claimed that his reputation was being damaged and fair procedures had not been followed before the decision to dismiss him had been taken last May.
An Post had carried out its investigation after mail due to be delivered had been recovered in September last year. Mr Boyle had denied he had re-posted it.
Counsel said his client had been interviewed by a different person than the one who sacked him and his dismissal had been decided on documentation only.
He said Mr Boyle did not have access to various “crucial” documents at the time, including internal memos.
Mark Connaughton SC, counsel for An Post, said the company had followed fair procedures and had concluded, following the investigation, that Mr Boyle was the only person who could have reasonably been involved in the wrong doing.
Mr Connaughton said Mr Boyle had been represented by union members at his oral hearing. Mr Boyle had alleged that he had been set up by people ill disposed towards him and his family and who had been engaged in a conspiracy by reposting mail.
He said Mr Boyle had not disputed he had been the only postman delivering that route and that the post box concerned was on the route.