After working as a part-time barman at a Dublin establishment over many years, while also being employed by a bank, Alan Ecock found himself being dismissed twice in a single year after a high-ranking official at AIB came across a news article detailing his unlawful dismissal from his side job at the pub, according to a tribunal.
A week after he was awarded €25,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in December 2023 due to his unjust and significantly harsh termination from Kavanagh’s Pub in Stoneybatter, Dublin 7, AIB handed out a termination notice to him.
Presently, the banker has lodged new complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 against Allied Irish Banks PLC.
AIB’s legal team presented their argument to the WRC, stating that Mr Ecock had consistently denied working at the Peacock family’s pub when queried by his superiors. Studying the news article about his previous WRC dispute, they claimed he sidestepped, declined and eventually downright deceived his employer until he eventually admitted the truth in light of undeniable proof.
Roland Rowan BL, acting on behalf of AIB under the guidance of the bank’s solicitor Mark Kelly, said the information he’d provided greatly differed from that in the news stories.
Alan Ecock’s legal representative, Setanta Landers, countered by stating: “He wasn’t keeping it hidden. He’s been pouring drinks in a central city pub for three decades. There was no outright contravention of his work contract.”
During earlier proceedings, it was disclosed that Mr Ecock began his employment with the Peacock family in the 1980s as a lounge boy. He continued his evening shift at Kavanagh’s despite having started a banking career in 1994, reducing his hours to two nights a week after tying the knot in 2013.
Mr Ecock was represented by Mr Landers in two separate cases. Initially, Mr Ecock was not completely honest about the charges lobbed against him. However, eventually, he admitted everything and told the truth without any alterations. Mr Landers accused the management of stubbornly adhering to their plan and trying to exaggerate the situation.
After undergoing a disciplinary proceeding, Mr Ecock was handed a dismissal notice on December 13th of the previous year. Consequently, his employment was terminated last February subsequent to the completion of his notice period.
Providing his testimony, Owen Murtagh, who was in charge of Mr Ecock’s department, disputed the quotes attached to Mr Ecock in news articles related to his first Workforce Relations Commission (WRC) case that came out last October. He mentioned these rebuffed his initial statements given to a disciplinary examination in May of the same year, denying that he worked as a barman at Kavanagh’s.
“He previously conceded he was gathering rent for the Peacock Group on Fridays and Saturdays, and was compensated €50 or €60 weekly for fuel,” Mr Murtagh testified.
The process ended with Mr Ecock getting a stern written warning once the bank substantiated his earlier disclosure about being the Peacock Group’s renting agent violated policies, which the tribunal learned in the hearing.
Mr Murtagh argued after asking Mr Ecock about the October newspaper article, Mr Ecock affirmed it was inacccurate, once more rejected having worked as a bar manager, and intimated he was being unjustly targeted.
Mr Ecock, in a formal gathering on October 25th, claimed the first WRC case was fully orchestrated by his lawyer and he had no prior knowledge of the complaint. Again, he denied being employed at the bar, stating his involvement with the Peacock Group was solely collecting rent and hosting bingo nights for senior citizens, as pointed out by Mr Murtagh.
Only towards the end, did Mr Ecock choose to confess the truth, voiced Mr Murtagh. He alluded to the meeting minutes, stating that an emotional Mr Ecock had expressed his desire to support his family.
Mr Ecock was documented as admitting to multiple occupations and expressing regrets regarding his indebtedness, said Mr Rowan. From the proceedings, it was revealed that Mr Ecock characterised his credit rating as ‘grade 2B’, something that could only be verified via internal bank systems, as stated by Mr Murtagh, and only when necessary for business purposes.
Following this, Mr Murtagh initiated a disciplinary process against Mr Ecock while concurrently requesting the bank’s special investigation unit to ascertain if Mr Ecock had misused the bank’s system for personal matters. Evidences showed that Mr Ecock had misused his access to his risk profile, as per Mr Murtagh’s claims, infringing on bank’s privacy.
Consequently, Mr Ecock’s termination was the result of an internal probe which revealed he had been intentionally deceptive regarding his pub business involvement and his misuse of the bank’s system. While cross examining Mr Murtagh, Mr Landers insisted that Mr Ecock had eventually confessed to the truth. “Only after being dishonest for five months, and then 50 minutes into a meeting that lasted a total of an hour,” retorted Mr Murtagh.
Mr Landers then accused the matter to be a point of personal contention for Mr Murtagh, as he may have enforced his investigations to bolster the allegations against Mr Ecock. However, Mr Murtagh denied the accusation and reaffirmed that he cannot overlook a conflict of interest and deception by a team member.
While the proceedings were postponed to a later date by adjudicator John Harraghy, Mr Ecock and another bank representative are yet to be examined.