Postman ‘lost everything he had’ after €130 theft from letters

A North Cork postman sentenced to three months in jail after admitting to stealing cash from envelopes has lost his unfair dismissal case against An Post.

At the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), Michael O’Connell, aged 49, said he lost everything and had received no compassion from An Post.

In March of last year, the Charleville postman was jailed for three months at Mallow District Court after being caught in a sting operation after test letters were sent to test the accused.

Mr O’Connell, of Clonmore, Newtownshandrum, faced 12 charges which related to the combined theft of €130 from the post and on appeal to the circuit court in April 2014, the three-month jail term was suspended.

Mr O’Connell was sacked from An Post in September 2013 on the grounds of theft and breach of trust, and he then took the unfair dismissal action against An Post.

At the EAT hearing, Mr O’Connell admitted he had brought shame and humiliation on himself, had taken punishment, while there was no compassion from An Post.

The former postman told the hearing he was tormented by depression and that he had lost his home. It was submitted on behalf of Mr O’Connell that An Post did not take sufficient account of his medical condition when sacking him.

Mr O’Connell said he had taken responsibility for his actions, that he was “an honest guy” and that it was “a relief” when he was caught.

A sister of Mr O’Connell told the hearing that her brother suffered from depression, but didn’t want anyone to know at work.

She said that Mr O’Connell worked 22 years for An Post while his father had worked for 25 years for the company.

She said Michael O’Connell “had been great with customers”, that he loved his job too much, and there had been no black mark against him prior to the court case.

An Post’s representative at the hearing declined to cross examine Mr O’Connell.

However, in his closing statement, An Post’s representative said An Post had no option but to dismiss him.

In reply, Mr O’Connell’s representative said that this was an extreme case and that An Post “had let the claimant down rather than even offer him a pension of a quarter of a week’s pay”.

Asked if the claimant was unfit for work, the representative said Mr O’Connell was “basically a hermit” and would not be available for work again.

In its determination, the tribunal said that what had happened “had been a personal tragedy for Mr O’Connell but that the dismissal had not been substantively or procedurally unfair”.

It stated that An Post did have a duty of care but it was not a provider of primary care services. It found that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction and that An Post had to have regard to its own protection.

EAT stated that it was unanimous in finding that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses available to An Post in all the circumstances.