|
|
|
|
APPENDIX XXIII.SUPERVISION OF STAFF IN PARCELS’ OFFICE.An Rúnaí, Coiste um Chuntais Poiblí. At the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee on 12th March, 1959, I undertook to supply further information to the Committee about the supervisional aspect of the case in which a Dublin postman misappropriated charges on dutiable parcels. The question of the postman’s irregularly absenting himself from the Parcel Office for the purpose of committing the frauds did not arise. He was one of 20 employed—each with a set route—on the delivery of parcels in the city area. The parcels which were the subject of his frauds were all for firms on his particular route and were presented by him to the addressees in the course of his normal round. His dishonest operations extended over a period of about four months during which he delivered about 17,500 parcels. Of these he mistreated 21. The parcel mail delivered in Dublin consists of 80% ordinary items free of charge to the addressees and about 20% “charged” parcels, i.e., ones on which customs charges are due to be collected. A delivering postman obtains his ordinary parcels via the general sorting division and the charged parcels from a special section where records are kept of the amounts due to be collected on them and later surrendered. In this particular case the 21 parcels which were the subject of the frauds did not go through the special section, they came into the possession of the dishonest postman as ordinary parcels and he himself assessed and pocketed charges on them. Precisely how the parcels were diverted from the special section, whether by the postman himself or with the aid of an accomplice, it has not been possible to establish. The diversion must have been contrived while the items were in the Parcel Office. Supervision of the staff working in that office is shared by a number of officers. There is considerable movement of parcels between and within different parts of the building and the degree of supervision over individual members of the staff cannot be as intensive as in the case of, say, office workers. Nevertheless, the system of control there has, over the years, proved effective; frauds of any kind there are rare and, as I told the Committee, it is 20 years since a similar happening occurred. The commission of these frauds cannot be ascribed to negligence on the part of any individual supervising officer. The thief was a postman of 30 years’ service. (Signed) L. Ó BROIN, Rúnaí, An Roinn Poist agus Telegrafa. 29 Aibreán, 1959. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
