Christine Holgate’s resignation from Australia Post will be subject to Senate scrutiny

The question for Christine Holgate’s lawyers is why they allowed her to sign and send the letter of resignation, given the then toxic relationship between the chairman and CEO? Picture: John Feder

Christine Holgate’s long-awaited return of fire at the Australia Post chairman, its board and the Morrison government made headlines on Wednesday in the heat of a government crisis on women, bullying and mishandling of related matters.

Many of the former CEO’s grievances, outlined in a 150-page missive for the upcoming Senate inquiry into AusPost look entirely justified. From the first gotcha moment on gold watches on October 22 last year to her resignation on November 2, Ms Holgate found herself in a political minefield that blew away her widely acknowledged achievements running and growing the giant government-owned business through COVID.

On one crucial point however, her resignation, Christine Holgate could and should have been better advised. And it involves not company law but employment law.

Ms Holgate states that chairman Lucio Di Bartolomeo unlawfully stood her down on October 22 goes to some length to demonstrate this was something which she never agreed to do. But on November 2, she says that after 10 days of considerable pressure from the chairman and concerned that the events were distracting the business just ahead of the peak Christmas season, she wrote to the chairman and the board and offered to resign.

“I have come to the view that my continuation as Chief Executive is untenable” she wrote in the letter. “I am offering to resign as both Chief Executive and as a Director with immediate effect. I do not seek my financial compensation. This must come to an end today so I would appreciate if you could give me your favourable response.”

In Wednesday’s submission, she added context. “I wrote the letter. It was not drafted by lawyers. It was drafted with every intent to evidence again to the board I only wanted to do what was best for the corporation,” she explained in the submission. “My only request was that the matter was resolved that day and that I be given an immediate exit, in return I would seek no compensation.”

It would appear as far as the board is concerned, the matter was resolved that day. And yet there is no closure at all for Ms Holgate.

Her letter offering resignation was sent to the chair and board at 10.46am on November 2.

“It included a statement I would release at 2pm which states I have offered to resign. It did not say I had resigned as I clearly had no legal agreement with Australia Post when I drafted it,” Ms Holgate underlined for emphasis.

Now this letter may not have been drafted by lawyers, but it was sent by Ms Holgate at 10.46am while she was sitting with her lawyers in their offices. And she had signed that letter.

According to Christine Holgate, she heard nothing at all from the chair or the board until 4.19pm. But before that, at 1.30pm, her statement had been leaked to Sky News and at 3.15pm she was shown a media release from Australia Post by a journalist from The Australian stating that she had resigned.

Australia Post chairman Lucio Di Bartolomeo. Picture: Getty Images

At 4.19pm Lucio Di Bartolomeo sent her a variation to her contract along with the media release that she had resigned. According to Ms Holgate, the new contract could have stopped her working for 12 months without pay in a non-compete deal that covered retail, financial services and logistics and would have prevented her from seeking redress for the treatment she received during the whole debacle.

“I did not sign it. No agreement was made,” she stated.

The question for Ms Holgate’s lawyers is why they allowed her to sign and send the letter of resignation, given the then toxic relationship between the chairman and CEO?

A statement from Australia Post reads: “Ms Holgate’s resignation, as a unilateral act, was effective from the moment she delivered her resignation letter. The resignation was also evidenced in Ms Holgate’s subsequent public statement.”

The allegations made in Christine Holgate’s very detailed submission, including that the Australia Post chairman lied to the media and misled the senate, will be thrashed out in the theatre of the upcoming inquiry, at a time when women’s voices demand to be heard.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese may have been the first to declare that Christine Holgate’s position as CEO of Australia Post was “untenable” but Labor seem to be crab-walking away from that.

It is quite possible the inquiry will return some leverage to Ms Holgate in her ongoing battle with the Australia Post chair, who she blames entirely for forcing her out of her job and the board. As she points out, she has never signed a deed of release.