Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Caroline  Browne

Aib Allied Irish Banks

Representatives

Gareth Murphy Financial Services Union

Isobel McCarthy Allied Irish Banks

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00072627-001

20/06/2025

The Complainant alleges she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with the bank. The Respondent contest the claim.

Caroline Brown took the affirmation and gave her evidence as follows:

She commenced in account opening and after her probationary period she moved to sole traders and then to customer service, teller and working the machines.

The Complainant put in an enormous effort into studying for her exams. She did about 5 hours a week and about 6 hours on a Saturday and a Sunday. The resits cost the Complainant € 180 each and she resat them seven times.  Even though she was studying very hard she was still able to carry out her duties. She found that time very difficult. Her mother was going through cancer treatment at the time and that added extra emotional stress on her. She passed the regulation exam in September 2023. She was left with one more to pass after that. In total she did 3 exams and 7 resits. The bank could have done more to help her assess where she was going wrong. They didn’t do that.  Under cross examination the Complainant admitted that that statement was not correct, and she did receive support and assistance from the bank.

The contract of employment was given to the Complainant. That is accepted.  The Complainant feels that she did demonstrate within the shortest possible time that she had attempted to become accredited as was set out in her contract as follows:

“Minimum Competency Code

Under the Minimum Competency Code (the Code) published by the Central Bank of Ireland, financial services organisations in Ireland are required to ensure that all staff engaging with consumers on sales related activities are accredited. It is a condition of employment that all employees who are responsible for performing controlled functions agree to accept and abide by the standards imposed by the Code, and that employees confirm to us as and when requested that they will do so. You are also required to obtain and maintain any accreditation under the Code which the Bank determine apply to your role.

New Entrants

If you are a New Entrant under the Code when you commence employment then you will be classified as a New Entrant. It is a condition of your employment that you actively work towards becoming an accredited person under the Code as soon as possible. This means that:

1. you must complete our MCC e-learning module and agree to abide by the MCC standards as set out in the Minimum Competency Code Policy before you undertake any controlled functions; and

2. you must participate in our training programme relevant to the functions that you are performing; and

3. you must register for and sit the first available and (where necessary) each subsequent sitting of each examination(s)which you are required to pass in order to become an accredited person; and

4. you must work towards obtaining all of the relevant qualifications in a consistent and timely fashion; and

5. you must maintain a record of all examinations completed, results obtained and examinations scheduled for completion.

Exceptions to the above requirements, and in particular the requirement to register for all sittings of each examination, will be granted only where you are able to demonstrate unanticipated circumstances beyond your control which make it impossible for you to comply with this requirement. It is your responsibility to ensure before you take up employment with us that you will be able to devote an appropriate amount of time necessary to achieve accredited status”

The Complainant feels that she did live up to her side of the contract. However, on 8 April 2025 she was invited to a disciplinary meeting. The letter stated:

“As you are aware, and as detailed in correspondence issued to you by way of letter on 4th March 2025, a matter regarding an alleged breach of contract by you, referable to your obligations under the Minimum Competency Code, has now been referred to the Workforce Performance Team, HR, pursuant to the Bank’s Disciplinary policy.  I enclose a copy of relevant documentation, together with a copy of the Bank’s Disciplinary Policy and a copy of your contract of employment.

The matters alleged against you are as follows:

“You did not pass the required number of exams to enable you to become an accredited person under the Minimum Competency Code published by the Central Bank of Ireland (the Code) by 2nd April 2025 which is two years from the date you first took up employment with AIB. The particular exam requirements relevant to your role were specified in the '2-year Exam Letter' you received on 4th March 2024 and a further letter dated 16th October 2024. By not achieving the requirements of the Code, as applicable to your role, within 2 years from date of commencement of your employment with AIB, it is alleged that you have breached your contract of employment”. 

On 16 May 2025 the Complainant was informed in writing that her employment was being terminated. It stated,  “As you have breached the terms and conditions of your contract of employment and are also in breach of the Banks’s Minimum Competency Code, your employment with the Bank is terminated for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of your contract of employment and the Banks Minimum Competency Code”.

The Complainant accepts that she did not get her required exams within the two year period. However, in her opinion the Bank ‘jumped the gun’ by dismissing her when she was in fact waiting on an exam result which was not known at the time. This is breach of fair procedures and natural justice by not waiting on this outcome. It demonstrates that the Bank had pre-determined the case and were intent on dismissing Caroline rather than affording her the time for this outcome.

 Furthermore, the Banks policy states that ‘every effort will be made to protect your employment’. It is very clear that every effort was not made by the Bank. They did not consider any sanction other than dismissal,

With the “ protect your employment”,  statement in mind the Complainant argues that the bank did not consider offering her different role nor did they give her more time to get her exams. They certainly did not make efforts to protect her employment.  The Central Banks code of conduct sets out that a four year’ period is allowable for an employee to get their exams. The banks two years requirement was onerous compared to that set out by the Central bank.

The Complainant attended lectures ( IOB) and in those lectures the participants were told they had four years. That was not inline with the contract of employment and the banks requirements.

The financial loss to the Complainant was approximately € 12,000.00. That was made up of the cost of the exams and resits and being out of work for four months. The Complainant  is now working for a medical practise four days a week.

Gemma Carroll BL on behalf of the Respondent first outlined all of the Respondent’s policies and correspondence before calling Mr Ian Brennan, the Appeal’s Officer and Ms Lorraine South to give evidence. The witnesses took the affirmation and gave their evidence as is set out below.

The Complainant commenced employment as a Branch Customer Advisor on 3 April 2023.  She was subject to a probationary period as follows: “The first 6 calendar months of your employment will be your probationary period. During this time, we will assess your performance and suitability for continued employment with us. Your probationary period may be extended. This will be at the discretion of your line manager and subject to a maximin of 11 months.  If your role involves the performance of a controlled function within the meaning of the Financial Regulator's Minimum Competency Code and you are not an accredited person when you start employment with us, then your probationary period will include progress towards achieving this accreditation. More detail on these requirements can be found below. At a minimum we will expect you to have passed two exams by the end of your probationary period (QFA Loans and QFA Regulation) and to have demonstrated that you have the intent to achieve an accredited status within the shortest time possible”

The Complainant’s role was subject to the requirements of the Central Bank of Ireland’s Minimum Competency Code and that obtaining the required accreditation was a condition of her employment:

“.Under the Minimum Competency Code (the Code) published by the Central Bank of Ireland, financial services organisations in Ireland are required to ensure that all staff engaging with consumers on sales related activities are accredited.  It is a condition of employment that all employees who are responsible for performing controlled functions agree to accept and abide by the standards imposed by the Code, and that employees confirm to us as and when requested that they will do so. You are also required to obtain and maintain any accreditation under the Code which the Bank determine apply to your role. This is a code that is regulated by the central bank in relation to requirements”

Her role required her to have her APA qualification within two years . She had to have the first two exams. Six were required to get accredited.

As a new entrant under the Code, the Complainant was required to actively work towards becoming accredited as soon as possible. This included participating in the relevant training programme, registering for and sitting the required examinations, sitting subsequent examinations where necessary, and working towards obtaining the relevant qualifications in a consistent and timely manner.

Compliance with the Minimum Competency Code was an important regulatory obligation for the Bank. It gave evidence that failure to comply with the Code could expose the Respondent to regulatory investigation and potential enforcement action by the Central Bank of Ireland.

The Respondent explained that the qualification relevant to the Complainant’s role was the Professional Certificate in Financial Advice and that the required examinations had to be successfully completed in order to obtain the necessary accreditation. Until the relevant accreditation was obtained, the range of duties that could be performed by the Complainant in a branch was limited.

The Complainant’s examination history. It stated that the Complainant:

•             failed the Regulations examination in May 2023;

•             passed the Regulations examination in September 2023;

•             failed the Savings and Investments examination in January 2024;

•             failed that examination again in May 2024;

•             failed it again in September 2024;

•             failed it again in January 2025; and

•             failed it again in May 2025.

Notwithstanding the opportunities afforded to the Complainant, she had not obtained the required qualification within the two-year period allowed.

The Complainant had been afforded additional time to obtain the necessary qualifications.

By letter dated 18 August 2023, the Complainant’s probationary period was extended on an exceptional basis stating “extended from 6 months at the discretion of your manager ‘on an exceptional basis. An extension is of benefit to you to ensure that you are the right fit for the business and to allow the business time to property assess your suitability for the role you carry out’

The extension was specifically intended to provide the Complainant with further time to obtain the qualifications required for her role.

 By letter dated the 4th March 2024 the Claimant was notified she had passed probation. The letter stated as follows;

“Your continued employment with the bank is subject to your obtaining all 3 exams under the standards outline in the Code. You are reminded that, per your contract of employment, it is a condition of your employment that you actively work towards becoming an accredited person under the Code. The bank reserves the right to reconsider your continued employment and will refer your failure to obtain the necessary qualifications to Workforce Performance under the Disciplinary Policy. I must remind you that, failure to pass required exams within the specified period will be deemed a breach of your employment contract and thus impact your continued employment with the Bank” 

Therefore, her continued employment remained expressly subject to obtaining the required examinations under the applicable standards.

The Complainant was advised that failure to obtain the necessary qualifications could result in the matter being referred to Workforce Performance under the Disciplinary Policy and that failure to pass the required examinations within the specified period would be regarded as a breach of her contract of employment and could affect her continued employment with the Bank.

The Respondent relied upon subsequent correspondence from the Complainant confirming that she had received the relevant communication and understood the requirements.

Accordingly, the Complainant was fully aware both of the requirement to obtain the qualifications and of the possible consequences of failing to do so.

When the Complainant failed to obtain the required qualifications within the permitted period, the matter was referred under the Bank’s Disciplinary Policy.

By letter dated 4 March 2025, the Complainant was notified that her continued employment was subject to obtaining the required examinations and that her failure to do so was considered a breach of her contract of employment  The letter stated ‘Your continued employment with the Bank was subject to your obtaining all exams under the standards outlined in the Code to obtain accreditation from the institute of Bankers. This is therefore deemed as a breach of your employment contract’

By further letter dated 8 April 2025, the Complainant was notified that she had been referred to the Workforce Performance Team, HR, pursuant to the disciplinary process. An independent decision-maker was appointed.

The Respondent stated that the letter set out the allegations against the Complainant in detail, referred to the relevant provisions of her contract and the Minimum Competency Code Policy, and provided details of the disciplinary meeting.

The Complainant was invited to make oral submissions and was informed of her entitlement to bring a representative to the meeting.

The disciplinary meeting took place on 11 April 2025. The Complainant attended together with her union representative. An independent decision-maker and an HR representative were also present, and a detailed note of the meeting was taken. The Complainant was subsequently provided with the minutes of that meeting.

Following consideration of the matter, a disciplinary outcome letter dated 16 May 2025 issued to the Complainant which stated “As outlined in section 24 of your contract of employment, under the Minimum Competency Code published by the Central Bank of Ireland, it is a condition of employment that all employees who are responsible for performing in a controlled function agree to accept and abide by the standards imposed by the Code. You clearly understood your position with the bank was at risk due to failure to obtain the necessary qualifications. … Lastly, the Central Bank of Ireland sets the Conduct Standards and Fitness and Probity Standards. Under such regulations, the bank is required to report the details of individuals who are found to be in breach of these standards the Central Bank of Ireland. All disciplinary action which results in a written warning, final written warning, dismissal or role removal will be notified to the Central Bank of Ireland’“

The decision took account of the contractual requirement that employees performing relevant functions comply with the standards imposed by the Minimum Competency Code. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant understood that her employment was at risk as a consequence of her failure to obtain the necessary qualifications.

A further meeting took place on 19 May 2025, attended by the Complainant, her union representative, the decision-maker and an HR representative. The disciplinary outcome was communicated to the Complainant and she was informed of her right to appeal.

The Respondent addressed the Complainant’s contention that it should have awaited the outcome of her latest examination before proceeding with dismissal.

The Respondent’s evidence was that the Complainant's decision to re-sit the examination occurred when the disciplinary process had already commenced. More importantly, the result of that examination would not become available until after the expiry of the two-year period within which the Complainant was required to obtain the necessary qualification. The Respondent therefore maintained that the outstanding examination result did not alter the position which existed at the relevant time: the Complainant had not obtained the required qualification within the period allowed.

The disciplinary process concerned the failure to obtain the required qualification within that timeframe, rather than simply the outcome of the Complainant’s most recent examination sitting. Accordingly, the Respondent does not accept that it was required to suspend the disciplinary process pending receipt of that result.

The Complainant exercised her right to appeal the decision.

Following notification of her intention to appeal, the Complainant was provided with details of the appeal process and an appeal hearing took place in person on 13 June 2025.The Complainant attended with her union representative. An appeal decision-maker and HR representative were also present. The Complainant was subsequently provided with the notes of the appeal hearing and invited to identify any matters requiring clarification. The Complainant responded that she had nothing further to add. The appeal was not upheld.

The Respondent contends that fair procedures were followed throughout the disciplinary and appeal processes. The Complainant was informed of the allegations against her, was aware that the matter was being dealt with under the disciplinary procedure and was aware of the potential seriousness of the outcome. She was provided with an opportunity to respond fully to the matters raised against her and was afforded a full opportunity to present her case and seek to influence the decision. She was advised of her right to representation and availed of that right. The Respondent further maintained that the relevant decision-makers were impartial and had not previously been involved in the process.  All relevant information, including the representations made on behalf of the Complainant, was considered before a decision was reached.

The dismissal resulted from the Complainant’s failure to obtain the qualification required for her role within the timeframe allowed.

The Respondent maintained that this constituted a breach of the Complainant’s contract of employment and a failure to comply with the Minimum Competency Code Policy.

The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant was otherwise performing well in her role. However,  that satisfactory performance was separate and distinct from the contractual and regulatory requirement to obtain the necessary qualification. The Complainant had been given sufficient time and opportunities to obtain the qualification, had been expressly informed of the requirement and the consequences of failing to meet it, and had nonetheless failed to obtain the qualification within the required period.

There were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses available to an employer in the circumstances.

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute. Accordingly, the matter for determination is whether the dismissal of the Complainant was unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides, subject to the remaining provisions of that section, that a dismissal shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(4) provides, inter alia, that a dismissal shall not be deemed unfair where it results wholly or mainly from the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing the work for which she was employed.

I have carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties.

The central issue in this case concerns the Complainant's failure to obtain the qualifications required for her role within the timeframe stipulated by the Respondent.

I accept the Respondent's evidence that the Complainant's role was subject to the requirements of the Central Bank of Ireland's Minimum Competency Code. The Complainant's contract expressly provided that employees performing relevant controlled functions were required to obtain and maintain the accreditation which the Respondent determined was applicable to their role. The contract further required a new entrant to actively work towards becoming accredited as soon as possible and to work towards obtaining the relevant qualifications in a consistent and timely manner.

I am therefore satisfied that obtaining the necessary qualification was not simply an aspiration or performance objective. It constituted an express and material condition attaching to the Complainant's employment. The regulatory nature of the Respondent's business and the duties attaching to the Complainant's role are significant in that regard.

The Complainant commenced employment on 3 April 2023. The requirement communicated to her was that she must obtain the necessary examinations within two years of commencing employment. I am satisfied that the Complainant was clearly aware of that requirement. Of particular significance is the correspondence issued to the Complainant on 4 March 2024 when she was informed that she had successfully passed her probationary period. That correspondence expressly stated that her continued employment remained subject to obtaining the required examinations. It further advised her that failure to obtain the necessary qualifications could result in referral under the Respondent's Disciplinary Policy and that failure to pass the required examinations within the specified period would be deemed a breach of her contract of employment and could affect her continued employment. The Complainant subsequently confirmed that she had received the relevant correspondence and understood the requirements. I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant was on clear notice both of the obligation imposed upon her and of the potential consequences for her employment should she fail to satisfy that obligation.

I have taken account of the considerable efforts made by the Complainant to obtain the required qualification. The Complainant gave evidence that she devoted significant time to studying, incurred the costs associated with a number of examination re-sits and continued to perform her employment duties during what was clearly a difficult period in her personal life. I also accept that the Complainant successfully passed the Regulations examination in September 2023. However, the issue before me is not whether the Complainant genuinely attempted to obtain the required qualifications. I am satisfied that she did. The issue is whether she actually satisfied the contractual requirement to obtain the necessary qualification within the 2 year period stipulated by the Respondent. On that issue there is no material dispute. I also note that the Complainant accepted in evidence that she had not obtained the required examinations within the two-year period.

While I have considerable regard to the efforts made by the Complainant, those efforts cannot be equated with satisfying the contractual requirement itself. The requirement was to obtain the necessary qualification within the stipulated timeframe, and not merely to make reasonable efforts to do so.

I have also considered the Complainant's contention that the Respondent could have done more to assist her. Of relevance in assessing that contention is the Complainant's evidence under cross-examination. While she initially stated that the Bank could have done more to assist her in identifying where she was going wrong, she subsequently accepted under cross-examination that her statement that she had not received support and assistance from the Bank was incorrect and that she had in fact received support and assistance. I am therefore unable to accept the proposition that the dismissal was rendered unfair by reason of a failure by the Respondent to provide any support to the Complainant.

I also note that the Complainant had been afforded additional time during her employment to obtain the necessary qualifications, including an extension of her probationary period on an exceptional basis.

A central argument advanced by the Complainant is that the Respondent "jumped the gun" in proceeding to dismissal while she was awaiting the result of a further examination. I have carefully considered this submission. The Complainant argues that the Respondent should have awaited that result and that its failure to do so demonstrates that the decision was predetermined. I do not accept that proposition.

The contractual issue giving rise to the disciplinary process was the Complainant's failure to obtain the required qualification within the two-year period stipulated by the Respondent. The evidence establishes that the Complainant's further examination was undertaken when the disciplinary process had already commenced and that the result would not become available until after the expiration of the relevant two-year period. The existence of an outstanding examination result did not therefore alter the fact that, as of the applicable deadline, the Complainant had not obtained the qualification required under the terms governing her employment.

The Respondent was entitled to assess compliance with the contractual requirement by reference to the deadline which had been communicated to the Complainant. I do not consider that the Respondent was obliged to extend that deadline indefinitely, or to suspend an already commenced disciplinary process, because the Complainant had undertaken a further examination whose result would not become available until after the deadline had expired.

In those circumstances, I do not find that the Respondent's decision to proceed amounted to a predetermination of the outcome of that examination. The disciplinary issue was whether the contractual requirement had been satisfied within the stipulated period. It had not.

I have considered the Complainant's argument that dismissal was disproportionate and that the Respondent should have considered alternatives, including additional time or an alternative role.I am conscious that dismissal is the most serious sanction available to an employer and that the proportionality of the sanction must therefore be considered.

This was not a case involving an isolated performance shortcoming or a minor breach of workplace procedure. The requirement to obtain the relevant qualification arose in the context of a regulated financial services role and was expressly incorporated into the conditions governing the Complainant's employment.

The Respondent's evidence was that, until the relevant accreditation was obtained, the range of duties that the Complainant could undertake within the branch was limited. The Respondent was also subject to regulatory obligations arising from the Minimum Competency Code. I accept that the Respondent was entitled, and indeed required, to take those obligations seriously.

I have also taken account of the fact that the Complainant had been afforded repeated opportunities to sit the relevant examination and had been clearly warned of the consequences of failing to obtain the necessary qualification within the required timeframe. While the Complainant was otherwise performing well in her employment, satisfactory performance in those aspects of her role did not remove the separate requirement that she obtain the qualification necessary for the role.

Having regard to all of those circumstances, I am satisfied that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the Respondent.

I must separately consider the procedure adopted by the Respondent. I am satisfied on the evidence that the Complainant was informed of the allegation against her and the contractual basis upon which it arose. By letter dated 8 April 2025, she was informed that the alleged breach of contract concerning her Minimum Competency Code obligations had been referred under the Respondent's Disciplinary Policy. She was provided with the relevant documentation, informed of the disciplinary meeting and afforded the opportunity to make representations. She was also informed of her entitlement to representation. A disciplinary meeting took place on 11 April 2025. The Complainant attended with her union representative and was afforded the opportunity to present her position. Following the disciplinary process, the outcome was communicated to the Complainant and she was advised of her right to appeal. The Complainant exercised that right. An appeal hearing took place on 13 June 2025 at which she was again accompanied by her union representative. She was subsequently provided with the notes of the appeal hearing and afforded an opportunity to identify any matter requiring clarification. She indicated that she had nothing further to add.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant knew the case she was required to meet, was afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to it, had the benefit of representation and was afforded a meaningful appeal. I therefore find that the procedures adopted by the Respondent were fair.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 is not well founded and fails.

The complaint fails.

Unfair Dismissal. Financial Regulations, Procedures, Exams, Accreditation, Breach of Contract, Disciplinary process, Appeal, Mitigation.