Complainant: Brendan Flanagan

Respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland Designated Activity Company

The WRC accepted that while the employer had not advised the employee to seek legal advice before signing the compromise agreement, the employee signed the agreement which stated that he had been given the opportunity to take legal advice before signing the agreement.

This WRC case involved a claim by a former Ulster Bank manager that he was made redundant for making a protected disclosure. He had accepted an enhanced redundancy package worth over €145,000. Mr. Brendan Flanagan’s employment as an operation manager with the bank was terminated by reason of redundancy on 31 January 2024. He contended that his dismissal was not as a result of a genuine redundancy and was in fact the consequence of him making a protected disclosure. The respondent contended that the Mr. Flanagan had signed a settlement agreement which confirmed that the enhanced redundancy payment made to him was in full and final settlement of all claims which may be made by him against the respondent. Mr. Flanagan submitted 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. The settlement agreement signed by Mr. Flanagan expressly identified 31 pieces of employment legislation including the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Protected Disclosures Act. It did not mention the Central Bank Act.  Mr. Flanagan contended that he was “under unreasonable duress” when signing the agreement and cited a family health matter. He also stated that he had not at any stage been advised to take legal advice.

The Adjudication Officer (AO) accepted that while the respondent had not advised the Mr. Flanagan to seek legal advice before signing the compromise agreement, Mr. Flanagan signed the agreement which stated that he had been given the opportunity to take legal advice before signing the agreement. The AO was satisfied that Mr. Flanagan entered freely into a compromise agreement based on his informed consent to relinquish his rights under the legislation. 

While the Central Bank Act was not referenced in the settlement agreement the AO held that it had been “encompassed” by the wording of the document. The former bank manager was by his own admission “a prudent man” and as such the AO found that by signing the settlement agreement, the complainant agreed that he had sought whatever advice he saw fit.