Christine Holgate’s ousting sets a dangerous precedent, says posties union

The posties’ union says Christine Holgate should, if she wants, be reinstated as Australia Post CEO if backed by a Senate inquiry.

The postal workers union says the saga of Christine Holgate’s departure from Australia Post is a matter of “workplace justice”, Picture:

The union representing postal workers has warned Christine Holgate’s departure from Australia Post sets a “dangerous precedent” for all workers at the government-owned enterprise, given the board stood her down as a “direct result of untested allegations”.

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information Postal, Plumbing, Allied Services Union (CEPU) has weighed into the saga engulfing Australia Post, labelling it “a matter of workplace justice”.

The union also supports the reinstatement of Ms Holgate as Australia Post’s chief executive if a Senate inquiry into her departure, which begins next week, clears her of wrongdoing.

“The CEPU states in the strongest possible terms, that the treatment of all workers at Australia Post must adhere to Australian workplace laws, including the laws and processes relating to employee discipline and dismissal,” the CEPU said.

The union’s comments - made in a 15-page submission to the Senate inquiry - adds to Ms Holgate’s claim that chairman Lucio Di Bartolomeo unlawfully stood her down over the rewarding of four senior executives with Cartier watches worth $19,950.

It comes after a war of words erupted between Ms Holgate and Mr Di Bartolomeo, with the chair issuing a near 1000-word statement calling her claims incorrect, after her 151-page submission to the inquiry called him a liar.

The watches, which came on top of cash bonuses, were awarded in recognition of securing a deal worth $66m a year from three of the big four banks to allow post offices to perform basic banking services on their behalf.

New of the luxury gifts enraged Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who said he was “shocked and appalled” by the purchases, and if Ms Holgate didn’t stand aside while investigation was conducted, “she can go”.

Mr Di Bartolomeo says he has phone records which prove he spoke to Ms Holgate and she agreed to stand aside as CEO, while Ms Holgate said she never agreed to such a thing and only communicated with him via email, requesting two weeks’ sick leave. She also says she has a witness - Australia Post’s human resources boss Susan Davies.

The CEPU, while stressing it did not act for Ms Holgate, said her treatment had the potential to send chilling reverberations across the government-owned organisation, which employs more than 75,000 staff and contractors.

“Ms Holgate’s departure from her position as chief executive officer of Australia Post was as a direct result of untested allegations that, in awarding these gifts, Ms Holgate was in breach of her employment conditions and her responsibilities to the Australia Post,” the CEPU said.

“It therefore remains unclear whether the board had legitimate grounds for standing Ms Holgate aside and may set a dangerous precedent in terms of the application and management of disciplinary processes for workers at any level.

“It is a matter of workplace justice.”

The CEPU said the Senate inquiry would ensure due process is granted to Ms Holgate, who has accused Mr Di Bartolomeo of a “vicious intent to defame her”.

“The CEPU believes that Ms Holgate, as with any other employee, deserves the right to fair and transparent due process in the testing of an allegations of misconduct, and the right to return to her position as CEO of Australia Post whilst that process ensues, should she so desire.”

An investigation into the Cartier watch saga and other expenses found there was “contradictory evidence” as to whether Ms Holgate informed then chair John Stanhope of the watch purchases. It also found that the gifts were “inconsistent with the obligation imposed by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act relating to the proper use and management of public resources and was inconsistent with public expectations.”

But the investigation - by law firm Maddocks - concluded there were “there is no indication of dishonesty, fraud, corruption or intentional misuse of Australia Post funds by any individual involved in the matters relating to the purchase and gifting of the watches”.