The Workplace Relations Commission official in charge of solicitor Ammi Burke’s unfair dismissal case last month considered the option of calling gardaí in to remove her mother from the hearing room so the case could continue – but ruled it out.
Ms Burke’s complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act against Arthur Cox LLC was thrown out last month.
In a written decision on the case published this morning, adjudicating officer Kevin Baneham wrote that “sustained and deliberate obstruction and disruptions” by Martina Burke prevented a key defence witness from being sworn in.
The company had denied unfairly dismissing Ammi Burke, of Castlebar, Co Mayo, arguing there was a breakdown in her relationship with three senior partners at the banking and finance division, where she was a junior associate on her first placement following her qualification.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
The commission was told that the incidents had included Ms Burke “having a go” at the most senior partner in her division, Gráinne Hennessy, who sent an email inviting her to lunch in January 2019 with two other new solicitors to “celebrate” her qualification.
Ms Hennessy gave evidence that Ms Burke came into her office and stood over her at her desk “very aggressively” and said she found it “intimidating”.
It also heard that Ms Burke had criticised another partner, Kevin Lynch, when he stopped by to congratulate her for completing a deal. The WRC heard that Ms Burke told Mr Lynch that she “wouldn’t have had to work so late on that transaction if his team had been doing their work”.
Arthur Cox’s managing partner Geoff Moore, the last witness to be called by the company’s lawyers, was called six times to the witness desk over the course of several hours on Friday 1 April.
Ms Burke, who represented herself at hearing, had made an application seeking that the adjudicating officer summon another partner to give evidence along with a HR officer at the company.
She said the case “must not proceed” without hearing from those witnesses – a position Arthur Cox’s barrister Peter Ward SC termed “petulant”.
Ms Burke argued that Mr Baneham had a duty to inquire into the matter at hand and summon Arthur Cox partner Kevin Lynch, along with HR officer Ruth D’Alton.
She said Arthur Cox was arguing her relationships had broken down with three partners – but was only calling two of them as witnesses.
What is the problem? My daughter worked from 8am to 2am… that’s 18 hours she worked, non-stop for Arthur Cox,” Mrs Burke said.
“Mrs Burke, please,” the adjudicating officer said, as Mrs Burke continued to speak over him. “Let me do my job here please, your daughter is making an application,” he said.
“I don’t understand why it’s taking so long. Why is it taking so long to bring this man in,” Mrs Burke said.
On the day, Mr Baneham denied the application to summon the witnesses Ms Burke sought, but she continued to maintain the position.
In the decision published today, he wrote: “I warned the complainant and escalated the warnings throughout the day. Unfortunately, the complainant did not desist with her objections and Mr Moore could not swear the oath, nor commence his evidence,” Mr Baneham wrote.
He was left with various options, he wrote.
The swearing of an oath requires “a moment of solemnity” which would be impossible with someone speaking over Mr Moore, he wrote.
“Writing metaphorically,” he added, “issuing a summons for the sole reason of placating a party or allowing a party to hector the swearing in and evidence of a witness effectively amount to the defenestration of the adjudication officer” and the “extinguishment” of his authority “for all the world to see”.
Another option was to have gardaí attend the hearing room to remove Mrs Burke, he wrote.
“Whatever of the Circuit Court or the District Court (which both deal with heavy criminal lists), it would be completely at odds for the Workplace Relations Commission to have gardaí attend Lansdowne House to exclude a person,” he wrote, and this would also have “undermined public confidence in the hearing”.
The only options left were to adjourn the matter or dismiss it entirely, he wrote.
In light of what had gone on so far, he believed another hearing day would have “rehearsed the exact same impasse”, he wrote, and opted to dismiss the complaint.
“I had discharged my statutory functions and I could not find against the respondent as the respondent had not been afforded fair procedures,” he wrote.
