Solicitor Ammi Burke has brought a High Court action seeking to overturn the rejection of an unfair dismissal claim she brought against her former employer, Arthur Cox LLP.
Last May an independent adjudication officer threw out a complaint Ms Burke had made to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that she had been unfairly dismissed by the well-known law firm in November 2019.
However, Ms Burke, from Cloonsunna, Castlebar, Co Mayo, claims the adjudication officer’s decision was flawed, was made in breach of fair procedures and argues that it should be set aside. Her action is brought on grounds including that a ruling made by the officer in the course of the hearing of her claim that the adjudication of an unfair dismissal claim is adversarial in nature is incorrect.
Ms Burke claims that under the 1977 Unfair Dismissal Acts any such procedures in the adjudication of such claims must be inquisitorial in nature. She also claims that the decision was flawed because the adjudication officer refused to summon two witnesses employed by Arthur Cox before the hearing, and that the officer failed to have certain emails produced before the hearing. She alleges that both the witnesses, who she wanted to cross examine, and the emails are very important to her claim.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
The music of 2024: Our critics’ verdicts on the best albums and acts of the year
‘I left the goose in the nightclub’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Kellie Harrington fought hard for the dream ending she well deserved
She further claims that the manner in which the adjudication officer brought to an end or terminated her claim was also unlawful.
Representing herself, Ms Burke has brought judicial review proceedings against the adjudication officer and the WRC. She seeks several reliefs, including an order quashing the decision to dismiss her claim. She also seeks declarations that the adjudication officer’s ruling that unfair dismissal claims at the WRC are adversarial is unlawful, and incorrect, and that his dismissal of the claim was unlawful. She further seeks various declarations including those decisions taken by the adjudication officer regarding the witnesses, the emails and the termination of the hearing were irrational, unfair and unreasonable.
Arthur Cox LLP is a notice party to the proceedings.
The matter came before Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger on Monday. The judge, on an ex parte basis (only the applicant was in court), granted Ms Burke permission to bring the challenge. However, the hearing was marked by what was at times a heated exchange between Ms Burke and the judge.
Ms Burke had asked for the court’s permission to amend her statement of grounds after the judge raised a concern about the vagueness of a certain aspect of the action where the applicant seeks clarity from the court on the practical applications of parts of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The judge said that she was not prepared to grant leave on that issue but was granting leave on all other issues raised by Ms Burke in her pleadings.
The judge added that Ms Burke could raise the clarity issue in her submissions at a later stage of the proceedings.
Arising out of that, Ms Burke then asked the court to be allowed to amend her pleadings, which the judge refused.
Arising out of that exchange, Ms Burke voiced her extreme concern over the judge’s remark that the court did not believe that any issue of public importance, outside of Ms Burke’s own case, had been raised in the action. Ms Burke said that the case was of “manifest public importance”, and she asked the judge on several occasions to “retract that statement”.
Ms Burke said that the statement would affect her case further down the line.
The applicant said she has not secured any legal work since she was summarily and unfairly dismissed by Arthur Cox and said that she shouldn’t have to be in a position where she has to come to court to vindicate her rights.
In reply, the judge said she had “made her decision” and would “not retract” anything that she had said. The judge added that Ms Burke “was free to appeal” the court’s ruling in relation to her judicial review action if she wished.
The case will return before the court at a future date.
