Despite the odds, David Fotheringhame, a previous trader at Barclays Plc, has won an unfair dismissal case against the multinational bank earlier this month. The 47-year-old was fired at the behest of the New York Department of Financial Services for misusing an electronic trading program.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Fotheringhame listened to executive after executive from Barclays claim that the bank could not rehire him because the trust had been broken down. His lack of skills and the inability to get regulatory approval were also reasons used against Fotheringhame to rehire him.
David Fotheringhame
Source: FX Week
Despite all of this, Fotheringhame won a rare judgment which will see him return to the bank and earn £150,000 ($192,000) a year. While this is less than the £1.2 million per year he was earning before as a Managing Director and his new position of director of data commercialization is below his previous one, it is still a victory for him nonetheless.
This is particularly highlighted when considered that unfair dismissal cases are typically capped at £83,000. Usually, an ex-employee can only get more if there is a whistleblowing or discrimination claim.
An awkward verdict for Barclays
This verdict is awkward for Barclays, especially after officials from the firm said re-hiring him would be inappropriate following Fotheringhame’s criticism of the dismissal process. However, it does seem to show that perhaps it is worthwhile for bankers to proceed with an unfair dismissal case and go back to work.
In cases like these, if an employer refuses to accept the court judgment, then the fired employee could be entitled to additional compensation. During the hearing, Fotheringhame told the judge that he would be willing to accept any position in any department within the bank.
Fotheringhame's firing was ordered by the New York Department of Financial Services in 2015. This followed an investigation into the Last Look electronic trading program. At the time, the regulator told Barclays to “take all steps necessary” to eliminate Fotheringhame’s post.
