‘The shackles came off’: Inside Ammi Burke’s troubled relationship with Arthur Cox
Ammi Burke (right) with her mother Martina and brothers Isaac and Simeon outside the Labour Court on Tuesday. Picture: Collins Courts
Future historians might well wonder at the preponderance given in news coverage to the activities of the Burke family from Castlebar, Co Mayo.
However, public fascination has invariably followed the evangelical Christians — parents, Seán and Martina and their 10 children — as they appear intent on demanding that Irish society and legislation be moulded in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Reaction to the family has ranged from bemusement at their disruptive antics to abhorrence at their courtroom outbursts and refusal to adhere to the rule of law.
Most focus has been on teacher Enoch Burke and his long-running campaign against his dismissal by Wilson’s Hospital School in Multyfarnham, Co Westmeath. His breaching of court orders to stay away from the school has seen him spend over 700 days in jail.
However, other family members have also taken combative stances against perceived injustices.
The latest instalment of the family’s legal challenges played out in the Labour Court this week, where Enoch’s sister, Ammi, appealed the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in April 2022 to dismiss her claim of unfair dismissal after she was fired from her job as a solicitor with one of the country’s top commercial law firms, Arthur Cox, in November 2019.
Even before the hearing opened in the Labour Court on Tuesday, the case has had a chequered history.
Ms Burke’s original unfair dismissal claim was previously abandoned in May 2021 following a Supreme Court ruling which impacted procedures at all WRC hearings.
That decision was the subject of an unsuccessful judicial review by the solicitor in the High Court before a fresh hearing was held by the WRC in April 2022.
Read More
On that occasion, the WRC adjudication official, Kevin Baneham, whose own role was challenged at the outset by Ms Burke amid accusations of perceived bias, decided to dismiss her claim following repeated outbursts and disruptions at the hearing by the claimant and her mother, Martina.
The WRC ruling was subsequently the subject of another judicial review by Ms Burke, which was rejected by the High Court in June 2023.
Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger threw out the solicitor’s challenge because of her disruptive behaviour in court — a ruling upheld by the Court of Appeal in April 2024, which described Ms Burke’s conduct as “utterly appalling and egregious”.
By comparison with previous legal proceedings involving the Burkes, this week’s Labour Court hearing was a relatively tame affair with two days of evidence heard without any major interruption and no walkouts or shouting over witnesses.
The conduct of the case can largely be attributed to the no-nonsense style of Labour Court chairperson, Louise O’Donnell, a seasoned trade unionist, who let both sides know clearly from the outset of her dislike of irrelevant or repetitive legal argument and questioning, as well as an unwillingness to tolerate any disrespect.
It resulted in more detailed evidence being revealed about the background to Ms Burke’s summary dismissal by Arthur Cox than at any other previous hearing to date.
The Labour Court heard how she was well regarded as a trainee solicitor with the firm, which she joined in May 2016. Her impressive legal skills resulted in her being offered a permanent contract on a salary of €70,000 as an associate solicitor in January 2019.
However, it appears that issues began to emerge shortly afterwards, which ended up in Arthur Cox taking the decision to summarily dismiss her 11 months later without engaging in any disciplinary process.
In an opening submission, Ms Burke, accompanied by her mother and siblings, Isaac and Simeon, claimed she had an unblemished record with the firm and had received exemplary performance appraisals during her time with Arthur Cox.
The solicitor, who is seeking reinstatement to her former role, complained that she was fired without warning and told it was a “no fault” dismissal by a HR director who also informed her that she had done “nothing wrong".
Ms Burke maintains that Arthur Cox broke employment law by showing “a flagrant and reckless” disregard for its own disciplinary procedures and threw her out of her office “on a cold winter’s night” without time to collect her personal belongings.
She claimed the manner of her dismissal has also affected her career prospects because of difficulties in securing alternative employment.
Not surprisingly, Arthur Cox claims Ms Burke has been the author of her own misfortune with its counsel, Peter Ward SC, claiming she “could not have caused more damage to herself". Mr Ward maintained Ms Burke’s contract had been terminated because the firm’s trust and confidence in her had been “irreparably destroyed” by her conduct.
He cited an unprecedented breakdown in the relationship between the solicitor and three senior partners in Arthur Cox — Kevin Lynch, Gráinne Hennessy and Ultan Shannon.
In an opening submission, Mr Ward pointed to Burke’s “superiority complex” and condescending attitude to colleagues and her “poor judgement in interpersonal relationships".
He also noted that she had quickly developed a reputation for having “run-ins” with senior partners, while also sticking to a rigid 9am-5.30pm work schedule — an oblique reference to the profession’s reputation for staff, particularly junior ones, burning the midnight oil.
Ironically, one of the complaints against Ms Burke arose when she was approached by Kevin Lynch, who thanked her for working late on a project.
The court heard that the solicitor allegedly remonstrated with the senior partner and argued she would not have been stuck late in the office if his team “was doing what they were supposed to do”.
Retired partner, Ultan Shannon, who had worked closest with Ms Burke and effectively acted as her mentor, gave evidence of being genuinely shocked at her “passive-aggressive” response when he tried to raise concerns about her conduct.
Arthur Cox’s managing partner, Geoff Moore, who had been prevented by Ms Burke and her mother from giving evidence to the WRC in 2022, outlined how the decision to sack the solicitor was his alone.
While he took no pleasure in summarily dismissing Ms Burke, the lawyer said he believed engaging in a disciplinary process would have been “futile”.
Nevertheless, Mr Moore said he decided to give the young solicitor an ex-gratia payment of €70,000 and the offer of help to find work with another legal firm in recognition that she was at the start of her career.
However, he also stressed that he was reinforced in believing his decision was correct by Ms Burke’s subsequent conduct at various court hearings, which he described as “utterly appalling” for anyone, but particularly a solicitor.
His view was also bolstered when members of Ms Burke’s family began near-daily protests outside Arthur Cox’s offices, which only came to an end in March 2020 due to the covid-19 pandemic.
On the question of Ms Burke’s reinstatement, Mr Moore said the prospect of her working again for Arthur Cox was “unthinkable”.
The Labour Court also heard that Ms Burke has not paid any of Arthur Cox’s legal costs that she was directed to pay by court order as a result of unsuccessful legal challenges.
In one aside, Mr Moore acknowledged that many people had asked how Arthur Cox had ever employed Burke in the first place but did not suggest an answer.
Former partner, Gráinne Hennessy, offered a possible explanation during her evidence when she observed that the young solicitor had behaved during her training period before the “shackles came off” once she had received a permanent employment contract.
Ms Hennessy was the first person to have concerns about Ms Burke’s conduct as the Labour Court heard she engaged in a “frantic rant” over having been inadvertently left out of an invitation for new associate solicitors in January 2019.
It was the “worst case of victim mentality I have ever witnessed,” Ms Hennessy remarked.
While the Burke family’s win-loss ratio in the courts to date has been one with which only their native county’s GAA fans could truly empathise, employment law experts believe she has a good chance of the Labour Court finding her sacking was unfair due to the lack of a formal disciplinary process.
However, they equally believe such a finding would be a bittersweet victory as the prospect of reinstatement is unrealistic. The case was adjourned until a date to be fixed in early 2027, when Ms Burke will give her direct evidence about her dismissal.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
