Suspended bank employee gets job back after 6 years

A former senior official of a major bank has finally got his job back after being suspended over inappropriate emails six years ago.

Mr James Reilly, 33, of Blanchardstown, County Dublin, has been reinstated at The Bank of Ireland after he claimed he was unfairly dismissed after being involved in what was described as inappropriate emails.

Mr Reilly joined the bank in April 2001 as an entry grade bank official, however, by 2004, he had been promoted to senior bank official, where his ability in consumer lending particularly was said to be recognised outside the bank.

In 2007, Mr Reilly had reached the equivalent status of assistant branch manager however in early February 2009 an IT security manager found a chain email which had been forwarded to an individual in the bank, which was then forwarded to four other members of staff, including Mr Reilly.

The security manager then alerted the bank’s head of IT security, Mr Brian Leahy, of email abuse, which resulted in Mr Reilly’s mailbox - together with four others - being ‘lifted’, a term meaning making a forensic copy of the mailboxes.

Numerous inappropriate emails and attached images were discovered in Mr Reilly’s inbox, whereupon he was put on special paid leave with immediate effect.

In February 2009, Mr Reilly was summoned to his branch manager’s office, where he was told he was to be suspended with immediate effect in relation to emails. Two other staff members were also suspended.

An investigation report found that the bank’s email policy had been breached by Mr Reilly and it was considered that the relevant emails had potential to reflect unfavourably on the bank.

Since then, Mr Reilly has been battling over his dismissal for the past six years, and on the 17th April 2015 at the High Court, it was finally decided by Mr. Justice Noonan that the circumstances surrounding the decision to suspend Mr. Reilly were “far from clear”.

“Nobody had complained about Mr. Reilly’s conduct and indeed it seems likely that nobody knew about it other than those in receipt of the relevant emails. None of those individuals were called to give evidence,” the judge said.

The judge stated that he could not conceive how Mr Cyril Macken, who, as the then-head of 21 North Dublin bank branches, could have independently decided to suspend Mr. Reilly and two other staff members, while not suspending a further two staff accused of the same misconduct.

“It seems to me that the conclusion is irresistible that either somebody else made the decision and directed Mr. Macken to implement it or alternatively it was suggested to him as the appropriate thing to do and he simply accepted that without further ado,” the judge added.

When cross-examined, Mr Macken stated that he first became involved in the matter when he got a call from Gerry Mitchell, after which he then contacted the branch manager, Mr Donnelly, with instructions to immediately suspend three of the five staff members involved.

While the judge stated that there is no doubt the emails were inappropriate, he stated: “It seems to me that if a policy of zero tolerance was going to be adopted by the bank to breach of its email policy, its employees were entitled to some notice of this policy shift.”

The judge added that he had no doubt that if Mr Reilly had known this, he would have been “very unlikely” to have engaged in this conduct.

“Having regard to all of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the conduct of the bank in relation to Mr. Reilly’s dismissal and the events leading up to it could not by any objective standard be described as reasonable,” the judge explained.

“Accordingly, I am satisfied that the bank has failed to discharge the onus of establishing that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal in this case.”

The judge concluded that the bank’s conduct was unreasonable and disproportionate, and an award of compensation would “fall far short of providing adequate redress”.

The judge stated that the only appropriate solution was re-instatement.