Sacked bank guard tells tribunal he wants job back

A SECURITY guard who was sacked after a kidnapping and robbery at a branch of the Bank of Ireland told an Employment Appeals Tribunal in Dublin yesterday he did nothing wrong and wanted his job back.

David Lynch (43) was working at the bank’s College Green branch in February 2009 when €7.6 million was stolen. The money was withdrawn by a staff member after his family was held hostage in their Kildare home.

The Dublin man was dismissed for his failure to comply with procedures during the course of the incident, counsel for the bank, Tom Mallon, said.

The bank would not bring any evidence in the unfair dismissals case, he said, because it did not want sensitive information to be heard in public.

He said the bank had, in co-operation with authorities, “certain procedures and practices in place to counter such attacks”. He described the procedures as “extremely sensitive”, and said their exposure in a public forum could put the lives of staff at risk.

“My client is entitled to take all necessary steps to protect the health and safety of its staff,” he added. The bank was not in a position to “even risk” the exposure of its procedures, and so would not bring evidence to justify the dismissal. Therefore there would have to be a finding of unfair dismissal, he said.

It would be for the tribunal to decide what remedy should be given to Mr Lynch, he said, but the bank believed it would be “practically inconceivable” and “wholly inappropriate” that he would be reinstated.

The tribunal had to know and realise the relationship between the bank and Mr Lynch was damaged, he said.

Counsel for Mr Lynch, Marcus Dowling, said his client wanted to be reinstated in his position as a security guard, where he earned almost €51,000 a year, but would also be prepared to work as a porter for the bank. “There is no evidence before this tribunal upon which it can make a finding of some impediment to re-employment,” he said. He said there was never any allegation of dishonesty against his client.

On the stand, Mr Lynch told the tribunal he had worked for the bank from June 1999 to November 2009. After being dismissed, he took a Fás course and, in August 2010, found employment with a security firm where he earned €33,000 a year. But the work was “from week to week”, he said.

“I want my job back; I did nothing wrong,” Mr Lynch said.

Tribunal chairman Charles Corcoran said the case was “most unusual” since the tribunal would not be deciding whether Mr Lynch was unfairly dismissed, but would only decide what remedy he should be given. He could be reinstated, re-employed or compensated for his loss of earnings, Mr Corcoran said.

A decision on Mr Lynch’s case is likely within the next two months.