Solicitor Ammi Burke’s challenge to the Workplace Relations Commission’s rejection of her claim of being unfairly dismissed by law firm Arthur Cox is due for hearing before the High Court on Tuesday.
A WRC adjudication officer last year dismissed Ms Burke’s complaint over her dismissal in November 2019 from her employment as an associate solicitor.
Ms Burke, from Cloonsunna, Castlebar, Co Mayo, joined Arthur Cox LLP in May 2016.
She claimed she had an exemplary and unblemished work record and no partner had ever approached her about any aspect of her conduct or employment.
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
The Legend of Sparrow Robertson: The last sportswriter in Nazi Paris
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
If we really wanted to be good and healthy in 2025, we’d resolve to pester our politicians
She was summarily dismissed at a meeting with the managing partner, of which she was not given notice or told the reason for, she claimed.
It was “unacceptable” she was left in the office until 2am working on a transaction while a partner was out socialising but no partner had approached her about a conversation, which formed part of the basis for her dismissal, where she raised that matter, she said.
Her dismissal came as a complete shock and the reasons advanced for it, alleged breakdown of trust and confidence, were unclear and uncontradictory, she claimed.
She also alleged reputational damage and sought reinstatement.
In opposing her case at the WRC, the law firm, represented by Peter Ward SC and barrister Mairead McKenna, instructed by Daniel Spring & Co, accepted that reviews concerning her employment were positive but said certain exchanges involving her led to a breakdown of trust and confidence and to the decision on dismissal.
Her relationship with three partners had broken down, it claimed.
Ms Burke’s behaviour during and after her employment, including picketing its offices, meant reinstatement was not possible, it also said. She had been paid three months pay in lieu of notice and an ex gratia payment of €70,000.
Ms Burke secured leave last July for judicial review of the April 1st 2022 decision by adjudication officer (AO), Kevin Baneham, rejecting her complaint. The proceedings are against the WRC, with Arthur Cox as a notice party.
Ms Burke’s separate appeal to the Labour Court against the WRC decision is on hold pending the judicial review.
Mr Baneham, in a 46-page decision rejecting Ms Burke’s complaint, said he had inquired into the claim and heard evidence over four days.
There was scope for more evidence but the hearing on April 1st was interrupted by Ms Burke and her mother after they objected to his ruling refusing Ms Burke’s request to summon two witnesses, a partner and a human resources director with the law firm, to give evidence. He also declined her request to order the firm to discover certain emails concerning the late-night working matter.
After he delivered his ruling at 11.45am, Ms Burke declined to accept it and she and her mother Martina persisted over several hours in making objections to it, Mr Baneham said.
He tried at 4pm to swear in the managing partner to continue with the evidence but the Burkes’ objections prevented him doing so. Ms Burke’s mother “led the interruptions” and this was “deliberate obstruction” to stop the case proceeding, he said.
The managing partner, as the person who decided to dismiss Ms Burke, had the right to give evidence and to swear an oath/affirm prior to doing so, he said.
Mr Baneham said he had made clear to Ms Burke the consequence of not permitting the managing partner to swear the oath “in a decorous fashion” would lead to her unfair dismissal complaint being dismissed.
The Burkes were given multiple opportunities to allow the hearing to proceed and when they did not take those the only viable option was to dismiss the complaint, he said.
Prior to April 1st 2022, Mr Baneham also rejected an application by Ms Burke to recuse himself from dealing with the case.
In her judicial review, Ms Burke claims the AO erred in describing proceedings under the 1977 Unfair Dismissal Acts as adversarial and contends the adjudication of such claims must be inquisitorial in nature.
The refusal to summons the two witnesses for cross-examination by her and to direct production of the emails was unfair, unreasonable and contrary to law, she claims.
Other grounds include that the AO’s termination of the proceedings and his dismissal of her complaint was unfair, unlawful and/or outside his powers.
