Ulster Bank manager who claimed he took €145k redundancy ‘under duress’ loses claim

A former Ulster Bank manager who claimed he was made redundant for making a protected disclosure has been told he has no right to pursue a claim after accepting an enhanced redundancy package worth over €145,000.
Brendan Flanagan’s claims against Ulster Bank Ireland DAC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Protected Disclosures Act and the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act were dismissed by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published on Friday.
Mr Flanagan, an operations manager with the bank with over 15 years’ service, was one of a group of 162 staff at the bank let go in the first half of this year, following a larger round of redundancies in late 2023, the WRC heard. He contended that after making a protected disclosure, he was “sidelined and excluded in the workplace” and “deliberately prevented” from working to the full capacity of his role, leading to his unfair selection for redundancy.
Tom Mallon BL, appearing for the respondent instructed by Arthur Cox LLP, submitted that Mr Flanagan had waived his right to refer any complaints to the WRC by signing a settlement agreement on October 31st, 2023. The settlement agreement identified 31 separate pieces of employment legislation, including the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Protected Disclosures Act – though not the Central Bank Act. Mr Mallon said that although the Central Bank Act was not specifically cited, Mr Flanagan had waived his entitlements.
In evidence, Mr Flanagan he said he was under the impression that everyone was being made redundant and only later found out he was the only member of his team let go at that point. Mr Flanagan said he was “under unreasonable duress” when he signed the deal, citing a family health matter, and said he did not think he was in the “right frame of mind”, and had not at any stage been advised to take legal advice on the agreement.
Adjudicator Marie Flynn said Mr Flanagan was “a banker of long standing” who was “not ignorant of how contracts work”.
“By his own admission, the complainant is a prudent man. By signing the settlement agreement, the complainant agreed that he had sought whatever advice he saw fit. The fact that he chose not to do so was a matter for himself,” she added.
Mr Flanagan had argued he had no alternative, but Ms Flynn concluded that he did: the “not very palatable” option of turning down the deal and taking only statutory redundancy.
Although the provisions of the Central Bank Act were not included specifically in the agreement, as the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Protected Disclosures Act had been, Ms Flynn considered it to have been “encompassed” by the wording of the document.
She said she was satisfied Mr Flanagan had “full knowledge and understanding of the implications” when he took the enhanced package. She concluded she had no jurisdiction and rejected the complaints.