Ammi Burke 'had a superiority complex' while working at Arthur Cox, Labour Court hears

Unfair Dismissal

Legal representatives of Arthur Cox said members of Burke’s family had also staged long-running protests outside its Dublin office which were designed to damage its reputation.

A SISTER OF Enoch Burke who was fired from her job as a solicitor with one of Ireland’s leading law firms had “a superiority complex and was condescending towards colleagues,” the Labour Court has heard.

Legal representatives of Arthur Cox LLP claim Ammi Burke quickly developed a reputation for having “significant run-ins” with senior partners after she began working as an associate solicitor with the firm’s banking practice group in January 2019.

Ms Burke, who comes from Castlebar, Co Mayo, is appealing a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission in April 2022 to dismiss her claim of unfair dismissal by Arthur Cox when her contract of employment was terminated on 12 November 2019.

The solicitor, who began working with the firm as a trainee in May 2016, is seeking to be reinstated to her former role.

Opposing the appeal, however, counsel for Arthur Cox, Peter Ward SC, told the Labour Court on Monday that Ms Burke was dismissed because she had “irreparably destroyed” the trust and confidence between the parties with her behaviour and there had been a breakdown of the relationship with certain partners in Arthur Cox.

While Ms Burke is claiming Arthur Cox is responsible for why she has remained unemployed, Ward said she “could not have caused more damage to herself.”

Ward observed that she was unusually “rigid” in the hours she worked for a newly qualified solicitor and “endeavoured to work within the frame of 9-5.30.”

The barrister said Ms Burke was also known as having “poor judgement in terms of her interpersonal relationships.”

The court heard a decision was taken to dismiss her with immediate effect without any disciplinary process because of her “disposition, pattern of behaviour and demeanour.”

She was given three months’ pay in lieu of notice while she was also provided with an ex-gratia payment of €70,000 – the equivalent of one year’s salary – which had been accepted by Ms Burke.

Ward said Arthur Cox would entirely oppose Ms Burke’s reinstatement as its relationship with her had been “entirely shattered.”

Counsel pointed out how members of Ms Burke’s family had also staged long-running protests outside its Dublin office which was designed for publicity and to damage its reputation.

Ward said placards used by the Burkes included one stating “Christian solicitor ejected from Arthur Cox” even though she had never made a claim that she was treated less favourably because of her religious beliefs.

He reminded the Labour Court that the appellant’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed by the WRC because of the disgraceful conduct of Ms Burke and her mother, Martina, in which he accused them of “aggressive and intimidating” behaviour.

Ward said years of litigation had been inflicted on Arthur Cox through numerous court hearings with several judges highly critical of what he said was a calculated pattern of behaviour by Ms Burke and her family.

The barrister said it was “absurd” in such circumstances that Ms Burke would seek reinstatement.

He also observed that Ms Burke had declined an offer from Arthur Cox to assist her with finding work with a different firm.

In her submission, the solicitor said she had worked with the firm for three and a half years with an unblemished record and excellent performance appraisals.

Ms Burke said she had never received any warning about her work and had never been the subject of any disciplinary process.

She was fired without any warning and was informed that it was a “no fault” dismissal by Arthur Cox’s HR director who also told her: “You have not done anything wrong.”

The only explanation she was subsequently offered at a meeting on 20 November 2019 was the breakdown of her relationship with three partners – Kevin Lynch, Grainne Hennessy and Ultan Shannon.

However, the solicitor said there was no documentary evidence to support Arthur Cox’s claims, while she never worked directly with either Mr Lynch or Ms Hennessy.

She claimed Arthur Cox had deliberately chosen “to break the law” through the “reckless and flagrant disregard for procedures.”

Ms Burke recalled she was “in complete shock” after being ordered out of the building immediately and denied the opportunity to pick up her personal belongings.

She claimed details of her dismissal containing false and damaging allegations about her were published on a UK legal website a few days later.

Ms Burke said reinstatement was the “only just and equitable redress” available as compensation would not be adequate to repair the damage caused to her.

“I am willing and ready to go back to work,” she added.

She claimed there were no insurmountable barriers to being reinstated and pointed out that there had been a high turnover of partners in the firm since 2019 and some of the partners in question were no longer working there.

Ms Burke, who was accompanied by several members of her family including her mother and brother, Isaac, told the court that she had received an offer from another large legal firm but had joined Arthur Cox because one partner had told her she was “a star of the future.”

In reply, Ward said there was an “air of unreality” about Ms Burke’s submission as she had made no comment about her own conduct.

A former legal partner, Ultan Shannon, gave evidence that he was surprisingly asked to take on Ms Burke in the firm’s banking division as some other people had issues with her.

Mr Shannon acknowledged he had advocated for the appellant as his division needed new solicitors.

While Ms Burke was good, he pointed out she was “not necessarily top of the list.”

Mr Shannon described several different issues where other senior staff had complained about Ms Burke’s behaviour towards them which ultimately led him to believe she no longer had a future with Arthur Cox.

He recalled being shocked at the solicitor’s “passive-aggressive approach” and her “disingenuous and strange behaviour” in which she claimed she was being excluded and bullied.

Under cross-examination, Mr Shannon accepted that he had never raised some of the issues directly with Ms Burke herself.

At the outset of the hearing, the Labour Court rejected an application by Ms Burke for an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that a related Court of Appeal ruling is still awaited.

The hearing was adjourned and will resume on Tuesday.