AIB unfair dismissal case adjourned

An unfair dismissal appeal involving a former employee of AIB began this morning at the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Brian Purcell (38) from Dublin was dismissed in April 2009 because he breached confidentiality by accessing the bank accounts of nine other employees, counsel for AIB said.

But counsel for Mr Purcell, Michael Forde SC, said he used the company's whistleblower's charter and this was "central" to his dismissal.

Mr Forde told the three-member tribunal, Penelope McGrath, Mary Maher and James Goulding, that his client, a junior executive at the bank's capital markets division, had availed of AIB's "speak-out" policy to highlight concerns about non-fraudulent, but deficient procedures at the bank in February 2008.

Within five days of having raised his concerns, Mr Purcell had been identified as a whistleblower to two other members of staff in an internal memo.

"Once his anonymity was blown he was a marked man," Mr Forde said.

The following month, a bonus Mr Purcell had received in previous years and had expected to be paid was not awarded to him. He then did a "foolish thing" by checking the bank accounts of his colleagues to see if they had been paid the bonus. His actions were discovered and he was suspended with pay pending an investigation. His employment was terminated in April 2009.

Mr Forde said his client accepted his wrong doing, but dismissing him for it was disproportionate. He said he could not prove categorically that Mr Purcell was dismissed because of whistleblowing, but he asked the tribunal to read between the lines and assume he was.

Counsel for AIB, Mairead McKenna, told the tribunal the bank's decision to terminate Mr Purcell's employment was proportionate and fair and was reached following a detailed process. He had been in a position of trust, one of only six employees in his area who had open access to all accounts and he had breached that trust. It was considered so serious that it warranted dismissal, she said.

Ms McKenna also said Mr Purcell's bonus was performance related and there had been serious concerns about his performance at the time. The decision not to award his bonus was made before his complaint under the "speak-out policy", she said.

She accused Mr Forde of trying to "sensationalise the facts" and urged the tribunal to focus on the circumstances of Mr Purcell's dismissal. The case was adjourned to the end of August when it is expected to be heard over three days.