Today’s article looks at Gary Boyle v An Post, a case in which the Plaintiff sought to use the common law remedy of injunctive relief following his termination of employment due to alleged “re-posting of mail” rather than the Employment appeals tribunal. 

Case Name and Reference: Boyle v An Post 2015 6739 P [2015] IEHC 589
Court: High Court
Jurisdiction/Subject Matters: Workplace investigation/disciplinary proceedings/fair procedure
Date of Judgement: 23rd of September 2015 Mr. Justice Max Barrett

Facts of this case

Mr Boyle was a postman in the Dublin area. He was dismissed by An Post for alleged ‘re-posting’ of mail. An Post had reason to believe that instead of delivering post assigned to him, Mr Boyle re-posted it in a letter-box close to his home. Mr. Boyle denied the allegation. An Post viewed these alleged actions as so serious as to merit termination.

Mr Boyle went through an investigation and disciplinary process with An Post. An Post dismissed Mr. Boyle pursuant to the standard notice provisions contained in his contract of employment and paid him all the payments to which he would have been entitled on the ordinary termination of his contract. 

Mr. Boyle claimed that An Post did not adhere to fair procedures throughout the investigation process and that, as a consequence, he was wrongfully dismissed.

Mr. Boyle sought the following;

1. An interlocutory injunction reinstating him to his position with An Post

Or failing that:

2. An interlocutory injunction compelling An Post to pay Mr Boyle a salary pending the determination of his wrongful dismissal proceedings, an interlocutory injunction preventing An Post from dismissing him for misconduct save in accordance with fair procedures, and an interlocutory injunction restraining An Post from appointing a replacement for Mr Boyle on anything other than a temporary basis.

The key issues at play in the case were whether An Post adhered to fair procedures in dismissing Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle’s central argument was that a letter sent to him on the 16th of December 2014, which initiated the disciplinary process evidenced on its face pre-judgment and bias. He asserted that the letter accused him of the alleged “re-posting” stating; 

“It is the Company’s view that you are responsible for the wilful delay and reposting of mail on the 3rd, 4th and 5th September 2014. Your actions clearly constitute serious gross misconduct and you have undermined the trust and confidence the Company can have in you as an employee.”

An Post responded by claiming that Mr. Boyle’s dismissal was effected on notice and as such there can be no claim of unfair dismissal, that damages are an adequate remedy and that the Plaintiff cannot make an undertaking as to damages.

Determination

Barrett J cited Maha Lingham v HSE in noting that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to “show at least that he has a strong case that he is likely to succeed at the hearing of the action,” when seeking mandatory injunctive relief.

The court addressed the above quoted letter stating that the invocation of a disciplinary process by an employer will almost always involve some element of pre-judgement, noting that an employer is unlikely to invoke a disciplinary process if “everything is fine and dandy.” 

The court went on to state that:

“One letter does not a process make, i.e. this Court may look to the entirety of the process that precedes and accompanies dismissal in reaching its decision in the within application.”

Similarly, the court also stated that no person appointed to co-ordinate a disciplinary process will ever be fully “neutral”. The only party who could possibly be neutral would be an outside 3rd party and it is not a part of Irish law to invoke the assistance of an “outsider to effect lawful dismissal.”

The court concluded that Mr. Boyle did not come close to satisfying the Maha Lingham standard. “Mr. Boyle had an arguable case but that was not enough…thus his case falls at the very first hurdle and from that stumble he cannot recover.” Mr. Boyle was not entitled to injunctive relief.

Legal Review

The case set out above is of note to employers due to the fact that if proper procedures and policies are followed throughout a disciplinary process, the employer’s final determination is likely to be found to uphold fair procedures. Barret J stating that “one letter does not a process make”, if the process is in order but there is a minor failing it should not bring down the process. 

It is of note that Barrett J stated that it is not possible to have a fully neutral decision making authority within the disciplinary process. Rather employees required to investigate other employees are encouraged to bring an appropriate level of detachment to the task and not simply accede to the expectations of their employers. 

It is also important to be cognisant of the fact that the court did not state that the High Court was an inappropriate venue for this type of claim. While normally such complaints would be heard in the EAT, the court noted that the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 does not limit worker’s rights, but rather it extends them. It may have been Mr. Boyle’s best option to go to the EAT but it is his entitlement to seek the reliefs he claimed above.