A decision by An Post to terminate its contract with a Co Cavan postmaster has been overturned by the High Court. Mr Sean Tierney, who was appointed postmaster at Termon, Virginia, in 1983 on the retirement of his father, had challenged, in judicial review proceedings, his dismissal.
In March 1996, the company notified Mr Tierney of its decision to terminate its contract with him. He appealed the decision. An oral hearing took place and later Mr Tierney was notified of the company's decision to turn down the appeal. Mr Justice McCracken yesterday said he stressed that it was not the court's function in proceedings such as this to determine whether An Post's decision was or was not correct in all the circumstances. It was its function only to consider the method whereby that decision was reached. The judge said that in 1990 and 1991 there had been some problems in relation to phone accounts paid to Mr Tierney. He was instructed to ensure that monies in respect of paid phone accounts should be remitted to Kells head post office daily. No further complaints appeared to have arisen until October 1995, when two customers queried arrears of their phone accounts which they had paid to Mr Tierney. An Post appointed a senior investigation officer to investigate the matter.
A hearing was held in May 1996 and afterwards An Post wrote to Mr Tierney saying that his contract would end.
Mr Justice McCracken said the only complaints which led to the termination of Mr Tierney's agreement were that on three occasions he failed to return monies paid for phone accounts in a timely fashion and on six occasions failed to stamp the customer's receipt. "Even taking into account that there had been problems some years earlier, it seems to me that dismissal for these matters is out of all proportion to the damage caused to the respondent [An Post]," the judge said.
It was not his function to determine what would have been a suitable response by An Post and all he could determine was that a termination of the contract was certainly disproportionate.
Mr Justice McCracken said Mr Tierney clearly was in breach of some provisions of the Postmasters' Manual and was not conducting his business in accordance with the rules laid down in it. In fact, he did not seriously deny that, although he said his situation made it impossible for him to follow the rules to the letter.
However, there was no doubt his actions did warrant disciplinary procedure and the procedure set out in the Postmasters' Manual was followed. Indeed, An Post may have gone further than it was obliged to do under the strict wording of the clause by having an oral hearing. Mr Tierney must succeed in the proceedings on the basis that the response of An Post was disproportionate to the complaints, that he was deprived of a fair hearing by not being made aware of the evidence against him which was taken into account by the investigation officer and that the principles of natural justice were not complied with.