In Stimpson v Citibank, an employment tribunal has held that a foreign exchange trader was wrongly and unfairly dismissed after he disclosed confidential client information to traders from different banks in an online chat room.

Background

Mr Stimpson was employed by Citibank N.A. as a foreign exchange trader from January 1989 until his dismissal in November 2014. In his appraisal Mr Stimpson was encouraged to join an online chat room in an attempt to gain better market information. Mr Stimpson was granted access to a Bloomberg chat room facility through Citibank but was not given any specific guidance on Citibank’s rules governing his conduct in the chat room.

Citibank’s code of conduct was issued annually and in respect of confidential information stated that employees must not disclose confidential information about any client to any unauthorised person (including other Citibank employees). The use of Bloomberg chats was a relatively new innovation at the time and there were no clear rules in place regulating what could be said. 

In July 2010, concerns were raised by an employee to a senior manager about the improper use of chat rooms. Despite the matter being raised no guidelines governing use were prepared. Subsequently on or around 31 January 2013, Citibank issued a specific instruction to its traders to stop using the chat rooms to share information with other traders.

Dismissal

In March 2014, Mr Stimpson was suspended based on allegations that on 12 occasions between February 2010 and August 2011 he had inappropriately shared client confidential information with traders at other banks in Bloomberg chat rooms.

Mr Stimpson’s main defence was that in the context of the culture of information sharing in the industry his actions were “normal”. He argued that no instructions had been issued about the use of chat rooms prior to January 2013 and that he did not believe himself to be bound by confidentiality rules in respect of certain clients and other central bank clients whose activity was in the public domain. Mr Stimpson was dismissed, he unsuccessfully appealed and as a result took the matter to an Employment Tribunal.

Tribunal

The Tribunal found that it was insufficient for the bank to rely on a strict reading of its policies and codes of practice on protecting confidential information without properly investigating how the policies were actually applied in the foreign exchange business or the extent to which the information was already in the public domain. The bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation which would have revealed these matters. The tribunal also found that Mr Stimpson was not in repudiatory breach of contract. The breach of confidentiality was not deliberate as he believed his conduct was permitted, given the similar conduct of his colleagues and immediate managers. Further, at the time of the dismissal, he had not shared confidential information in chat rooms for three years following a specific management instruction on the use of chat rooms.

Comment

The case provides useful lessons for employers conducting disciplinary investigations and hearings for misconduct, particularly in regulated sectors where the consequences of summary dismissal on an employee’s future career prospects can be severe. In this case, Citibank failed to look at the wider context when it reviewed Mr Stimpson’s actions and was found, unsurprisingly, to be acting unfairly.

Stimpson v Citibank N.A./ET/3200437/15