A FORMER AIB employee, sacked after accessing the bank accounts of colleagues, said yesterday he was not aware his actions would warrant his dismissal.
Brian Purcell (38), from Dublin, who has taken a case of unfair dismissal at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, told the tribunal he looked at the accounts of nine of his colleagues to see if they had been paid a bonus he did not get.
Mr Purcell, who earned €44,200 a year, plus undisclosed bonuses as a junior executive at the bank’s capital markets division, was dismissed in April 2009 a year after the bank had discovered he had accessed the accounts.
He told the tribunal he had called a friend in the office on a day off on Good Friday 2008 and asked him to access his bank account to see if his bonus was paid. His friend said “sorry pal, only your salary is in”. Mr Purcell was deeply disappointed and upset, he said and he checked other colleagues’ bank accounts.
He knew what he did was wrong and he accepted it was an invasion of privacy. He would not have done it if he had been paid the bonus, he said.
Though familiar with the disciplinary and grievance policies, he said he was not aware his actions warranted dismissal.
The tribunal heard he had a difficult relationship with his superior in the section to which he had been seconded. In the weeks before his dismissal, he had also highlighted concerns he had with some accounting transactions in AIB. Mr Purcell had used the bank’s “speak-out” procedures for whistleblowers.
He told his counsel, Michael Forde SC, he had uncovered 21 items “all melded together” which amounted to £120,000.
Some of the transactions, which took place in February 2008, and which were labelled “Moody’s” were carried out at 7.30am.
He also highlighted a transaction involving €1,600 which he said was an overpayment of interest from another bank. Instead of being returned to the bank, it was used to “settle off” a separate error that had been made. He had brought the matters to the attention of a colleague before speaking out and the colleague was concerned at the “reputational damage” to AIB.
A subsequent bank investigation found the particular accounting process “lacked transparency” in some respects. But it did not involve “improper purposes”. Mr Purcell had expected that as a whistleblower his identity would be protected.
Human resources manager Mary McDermott accepted that for a whistleblower policy system to work it was essential his or her identity was protected.
The case continues today.
