In the case of Mr M Daniels v (1) United National Bank Ltd (2) Mr B Firth, Mr Daniels was employed by United National Bank as chief risk officer (CRO) from July 2019 until the termination of his employment in April 2021. Mr Firth is its chief executive officer (CEO) and was Mr Daniels’s line manager.
An organisation’s Chief Risk Officer is the corporate executive with responsibility for assessing and mitigating regulatory, competitive and technological threats to an enterprise’s capital and earnings. The CRO role is a regulated position and is one which has individual accountability as set out in the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (“SMCR”).
In January 2021, Mr Daniels made a protected disclosure in his attestation and appraisal form, stating that there were insufficient resources to allow him to complete his role and made a remark regarding the existing operations’ lack of sustainability.
He said: “Working hours have been exceptional this year with repeated late-night finishes and several early morning completion times, this is not sustainable.”
The tribunal was informed that Mr Daniels believed the working time limitations, particularly those relating to working hours and annual leave rights, had been “violated”, and that a breach “had both occurred and was likely to occur unless recruitment was progressed”.
Mr Daniels also raised concerns about deliberate concealment of a key control form and the bank’s failure to monitor working hours.
In March, Mr Firth informed Mr Daniels that he would be fired and placed on gardening leave the next day. “Your role is critical to the bank, but we have concerns that you are not best suited for this role here,” he said.
The tribunal heard that Daniels was not given the option to contest his dismissal and that he was fired without any disciplinary process before the conclusion of the compliance evaluation. He also did not receive a response to his concerns expressed in his alleged protected disclosures.
Employment judge Brown said that Daniels’ “escalating protected disclosures were the true cause of the decision to dismiss him” as the tribunal “decided that [the employer] considered [Daniels] was not the ‘right person’ for the CRO job going forward because of his continued protected disclosures”.
Daniels was awarded a grand total of £137,894.37 in compensation for his claims, including injury to feelings, past loss, an ACAS uplift and grossing up.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
