About this Article:
On 12 November 2019, Ammi Burke was dismissed from her position as an Associate Solicitor at Arthur Cox LLP – one of Ireland’s largest law firms. Ms Burke claims she was told at the dismissal meeting that it was a no fault dismissal and that she had done nothing wrong.
In 2020, Ms Burke initiated a claim against Arthur Cox LLP under the Unfair Dismissals Act.
In 2022, this claim was the subject of a determination by an Adjudication Officer in the Workplace Relations Commission in which the claim was dismissed without a consideration of the merits of the case.
Ms Burke subsequently appealed to the Labour Court.
On Monday, 12 October 2026, the Labour Court hearing opened at Landsdowne House in Dublin before Labour Court members: Ms Louise O’Donnell (Chairman of the Labour Court), Mr Paul O’Brien and Mr Paul P. Bell.
Over two days, three witnesses called by the firm gave evidence before the Labour Court. These were: Mr Ultan Shannon, a former equity partner at Arthur Cox LLP; Ms Grainne Hennessy, also a former equity partner at Arthur Cox LLP; and Mr Geoff Moore, the Managing Director of Arthur Cox LLP.
On the afternoon of Tuesday, 13 October 2026, the hearing was adjourned to a later date.
The Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner and other media outlets have reported extensively on the proceedings at the Labour Court in this case, reflecting the public interest in the appeal.
However, these reports have largely omitted the questioning of Arthur Cox LLP’s witnesses by Ms Burke and the members of the Labour Court over the two-day period and the responses of the firm’s witnesses to that questioning.
To address that omission, and in the interests of providing the public with a more balanced and fulsome account of the proceedings in this case to date, a selection of the questions put to these witnesses and the responses given are published hereunder.
Cross-Examination of Mr Ultan Shannon by Ms Ammi Burke:
Under cross-examination by Ms Burke, Mr Shannon acknowledged that in all of her Trainee Development Review Forms completed between 2016 and 2018, Ms Burke was rated as either ‘met expectations’, ‘exceeded expectations’ or ‘outstanding’ in every category in which she was marked.
He further acknowledged that she was repeatedly rated in those forms as having ‘exceeded expectations’ under the category designated ‘People Skills’ – a category which covered the skills of ‘teamwork’ and ‘interacting with clients and/or colleagues’.
Mr Shannon acknowledged commentary in the forms describing Ms Burke as ‘always professional and confident’, ‘a keen team player’, ‘working long hours’ and an employee with ‘a strong commitment to the team’.
He accepted that he had shared an office with Ms Burke for five months in the latter half of 2018. He gave evidence that he had a good relationship with her during this time and had not raised any issues with her.
When asked if his role as a Practice Group Leader would have involved providing feedback and guidance to associates, Mr Shannon answered in the affirmative. He gave evidence that he and the then Chair of Arthur Cox LLP, Ms Orla O’Connor, conducted an annual review of Ms Burke’s performance as an associate solicitor in July 2019, approximately four months before she was dismissed, but they raised no issues with Ms Burke.
In evidence Mr Shannon described the July 2019 review as ‘good’ and ‘positive’.
Mr Shannon was challenged by Ms Burke regarding two alleged conversations he had had with partners, Ms Grainne Hennessy and Mr Kevin Lynch, about Ms Burke in early 2019. Ms Burke stated: ‘I put it to you Mr Shannon that it is just not credible that you did not view these conversations with Ms Hennessy and Mr Lynch as being of sufficient importance to ever raise them with me, even at my associate review in July, and yet come November they had suddenly assumed the significance that they justified my dismissal. It is not credible.’
He responded: ‘I did take them seriously. I didn’t raise them.’
Mr Shannon stated that it was not his decision to dismiss Ms Burke from the firm: ‘I did not make that decision.’
He testified that there had been a meeting of Arthur Cox partners in June 2019 where Ms Burke’s conduct in relation to court proceedings in the West of Ireland had been raised. Mr Shannon stated that there was ‘anger’ at the meeting that nothing was being done about the matter. He stated that the question was asked: ‘What is this person doing in the firm?’
Ms Burke asked: ‘That case was a religious discrimination case, wasn’t it?’
Mr Shannon responded: ‘I do not know.’
Ms Burke countered: ‘I went into your office and told you what the case was about, didn’t I?’
Mr Shannon responded: ‘I do not remember that. If you did that is fine, I do not dispute it. I am just saying that in a meeting, this came up.’
Ms O’Donnell, the Chairman, interjected: ‘There is no claim before us of religious discrimination. The burden of proof is on the employer to show the dismissal is fair.’
Responding to the Chair, Ms Burke argued that the Labour Court is required to have regard to all of the circumstances of the case.
The cross-examination resumed.
Mr Shannon testified of a conversation in 2018 with the Head of the Trainee Programme at Arthur Cox during which she indicated that there was a difficulty placing Ms Burke for her final rotation. According to Mr Shannon, the Head of the Trainee Programme raised Ms Burke’s ‘beliefs’ during the conversation.
Questioning of Mr Ultan Shannon by the Labour Court:
Mr Shannon was asked by Mr Paul P. Bell – a member of the three-person Labour Court – why he chose not to engage with Ms Burke about his concerns: ‘How is the employee to be aware of your lack of satisfaction?’ queried Mr Bell.
Mr Shannon responded that ‘rightly or wrongly’ he hoped things would ‘move on’.
Mr Bell stated: ‘How does any employee in Arthur Cox, know, never mind Ms Burke, that the firm has an issue with their behaviour? Did you not get to the point of engaging the disciplinary process informally?’
Mr Shannon stated: ‘We did not get to that.’
Mr Bell continued: ‘There is a policy sitting there. What chance did Ms Burke have to be aware and to address the company’s concerns? There was not correction and discussion.’
In response, Mr Shannon stated: ‘You are right on formalities. But on the side that we will say that does not count, she should have known [her actions] were entirely inappropriate.’
Cross-Examination of Ms Grainne Hennessy by Ms Ammi Burke:
Ms Hennessy had previously given evidence of a conversation in January 2019 in which Ms Burke had raised a concern regarding an email Ms Hennessy had sent her. Ms Hennessy claimed that following the conversation, the relationship between them was ‘shattered’ and stated: ‘Under no circumstances would I work with [Ms Burke] in the future.’
Ms Burke drew Ms Hennessy’s attention to the many positive reviews and comments she had received from partners and associates throughout her time at Arthur Cox LLP.
Ms Hennessy acknowledged that in Ms Burke’s Trainee Development Review Forms, Ms Burke was repeatedly rated as having ‘exceeded expectations’ under the category designated ‘People Skills’ – a category which covered the skills of ‘teamwork’ and ‘interacting with clients and/or colleagues’.
Ms Burke pointed to written reviews and correspondence from colleagues, including senior partners, describing Ms Burke as ‘a keen team player’, an employee with ‘a strong commitment to the team’, ‘the best buddy’ and ‘a great colleague and team player’ dating up to December 2019.
Ms Burke challenged Ms Hennessy: ‘You never worked directly with me. So, your view of me is generally based on a conversation you had with me.’
Ms Hennessy responded that she did not need to have worked with Ms Burke to have formed her view of her.
Ms Burke continued: ‘Whereas these people who have testified to what kind of person I am, these are people who knew me, they were observing me for extended periods of time so that they could give feedback, they worked directly with me, they had substantial first-hand experience of what I am like. And very differently to you, their view of course is that I am a buddy, professional, enthusiastic, a keen team player.’
Ms Burke categorically rejected Ms Hennessy’s characterisation of the aforementioned conversation they had had in January 2019.
Ms Burke put it to Ms Hennessy that she had behaved respectfully towards Ms Hennessy but that Ms Hennessy appeared to have taken offence at Ms Burke’s raising of a concern regarding inclusion.
Ms Hennessy responded: ‘I was not offended in the slightest.’
Ms Hennessy confirmed under cross-examination that she was one of only two Diversity and Inclusion partners in Arthur Cox LLP at the time.
Ms Burke stated: ‘I just want to confirm with you that it would not be consistent with the diversity and inclusion policy to punish an employee just because they raised a concern that they did not feel included.’
In response, Ms Hennessy stated: ‘Well, I need to give an answer, she did not come to me in my capacity as Diversity and Inclusion partner. There was no invoking of the policy. I explained that I may not have phrased [the email] perfectly. I apologised.’
Ms Hennessy acknowledged that Ms Burke was not invited to a client lunch which Ms Hennessy had organised later in 2019.
Questioning of Ms Grainne Hennessy by the Labour Court:
Mr Bell opened his questioning by remarking that Ms Hennessy had in her evidence expressed ‘very strong views’ about her interaction with Ms Burke in January 2019 including that Ms Burke was ‘intimidating’ and ‘a risk to the organisation’.
Mr Bell then queried Ms Hennessy’s omission to raise the matter with Human Resources, stating: ‘The question that is confusing to me is, having identified these concerns, how did you expect these issues [to be addressed] without intervention from anyone in the company?’
Ms Hennessy responded that it was a ‘fair question’ and that she ‘almost did not want it to get oxygen’. She stated that if she went to HR about the matter, it would be a ‘permanent record’ against Ms Burke. She stated that while she found the conduct ‘truly bizarre’, she was ‘willing to see how things played out’.
Mr Bell pressed Ms Hennessy again on the fact that she had ‘formed very strong views’ about Ms Burke but that there had been ‘no further engagement with Ms Burke’.
Mr Bell again asked Ms Hennessy how she expected her concerns to be addressed.
Ms Hennessy responded: ‘I took the wrong action. I did nothing about it.’
Mr O’Brien – another member of the three-person Labour Court – asked whether Ms Hennessy had ever had another situation in her career where she had decided she would never work with another person.
Ms Hennessy answered that she had not.
Cross-Examination of Mr Geoff Moore by Ms Ammi Burke:
Under cross-examination by Ms Burke, Mr Moore confirmed he is the Managing Partner of Arthur Cox LLP since 1 November 2019.
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that he had referred in his direct evidence to statements Mr Shannon had made to him about Ms Burke in November 2019.
Ms Burke continued: ‘And in relation to that conversation, that involved Mr Shannon telling you what Ms Hennessy had told him about me? And it involved Mr Shannon telling you about what Mr Lynch had told him about me. So, it was two levels away.’
Mr Moore responded: ‘That is correct.’
Ms Burke stated: ‘And you never heard from me, my side of the story so to speak in relation to those comments?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘Correct.’
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that he came to a judgment on her character without speaking to her.
Mr Moore stated: ‘I made the assessment on the basis of what someone else – Ultan Shannon – told me, who was there for 21 years and who is someone who I think is of enormous integrity,’ replied Mr Moore.
Ms Burke continued: ‘You also took his word and his word for what someone else said about me.’
‘At that point in time, yes,’ responded Mr Moore.
Ms Burke asked Mr Moore if it is important to ensure that any difficulties that arise in the workplace are dealt with fairly.
‘As fairly as possible, yes, it would,’ Mr Moore responded.
Ms Burke continued: ‘It is important to ensure that if an allegation is made against an employee, that the employee would actually be made aware of what the allegation is, isn’t that right?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘That depends on the circumstances in my view. I do not expect you to agree with me. In the circumstances I think it was best to [deal with the matter] as I did.’
Ms Burke stated: ‘And it is important that if an allegation is made against an employee, that that employee has a chance to give their side of the story, isn’t that right?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘It depends on the facts and circumstances.’
Ms Burke stated: ‘And they should be provided with the opportunity to give their side of the story, before a decision is made?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘Not in all circumstances.’
Ms Burke guided Mr Moore’s attention to the Disciplinary Procedure of Arthur Cox LLP.
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that the procedure repeatedly provided: ‘The employee will be advised of the reason for the warning, the improvement required and the consequences of failing to achieve improvement or if there is a repetition of the behaviour.’
She highlighted a provision of the procedure which stated: ‘Where the previous stages of the disciplinary procedure have been exhausted, an employee may be dismissed.’
‘Now the word exhausted there means the procedure has been tried and has failed, isn’t that right?’ asked Ms Burke.
Mr Moore responded: ‘I have not considered the point.’
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that the section of the procedure dealing with disciplinary meetings indicated that an employee at Arthur Cox would be informed if there was to be an official disciplinary meeting, would know the cause or reason for the meeting, would be heard at the meeting, and would have what they say taken into account prior to any disciplinary action.
Mr Moore responded: ‘Yes, that is what it says. Again, to the extent the firm is following the formal procedure, that is correct.’
Ms Burke challenged Mr Moore: ‘I am just going to put it to you Mr Moore that you essentially did not follow anything in this procedure in terminating my employment. You did not follow the informal procedure, stage one, stage two, stage three. You did not tell me what the issue was, what the allegations were, you did not tell me there were meetings happening, you did not let me tell my side of the story. You essentially did not follow anything that is in this procedure.’
In response, Mr Moore stated: ‘That is correct Ms Burke. At the point in time, you were an associate qualified for eleven months. I feel that was the correct decision of the firm for the time. I feel it was the correct decision for you.’
‘But you were aware of the procedure, so you made a deliberate decision to bypass it,’ commented Ms Burke.
Mr Moore responded: ‘As I said in evidence, we weighed up the options available to the firm.’ He continued: ‘Our position is that it was permissible as a matter of Irish law.’
Ms Burke put it to him that he was a solicitor.
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that he had spoken with Mr Cian Beecher, a senior employment law partner at Arthur Cox LLP, prior to dismissing Ms Burke.
Ms Burke stated: ‘And even today at the Labour Court, you still stand over bypassing all of those steps and immediately terminating the employment without utilising this process. You are still saying that was right.’
Mr Moore responded: ‘Yes, I stand over it based on all the evidence available to you at that time. The relationship was utterly sundered.’
Regarding the manner of her dismissal, Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that she was called to a meeting with HR at short notice. After the meeting, she was directed to the front lobby of the Arthur Cox building and ordered to leave.
Mr Moore responded: ‘I am responsible for the manner in which you were dismissed.’
When it was put to Mr Moore that he had treated Ms Burke with ‘gross unfairness and injustice’, he refused to agree.
Ms Burke stated: ‘You dismissed me in an extremely insensitive fashion. The manner in which you dismissed me was grossly destructive of my prospects of ever again practising as a solicitor in this country. By having me brought to the lobby in a state of shock and ordered from the building in full view of other employees.’
Mr Moore responded: ‘I do not agree with that. We supported you as much as we could to move on with your career. Again, we had no option but to direct you to leave the premises. The entrance to the Arthur Cox building on Tuesday evening is not Waterloo Station.’
In response to questioning by Ms Burke, Mr Moore accepted that a few days after Ms Burke’s dismissal the firm received an email from a journalist working for RollonFriday – a legal news website.
Mr Moore accepted that this email may have indicated that an article would be published.
He did not dispute that Arthur Cox LLP failed to inform Ms Burke that the firm had been contacted by a journalist until after an article was published on the RollonFriday website stating that a ‘Christian lawyer’ had been ‘ejected’ from the company.
He did not dispute that after the article was published the Head of the HR Department, Ms Ruth D’Alton, contacted Ms Burke informing her about the article and providing a link to the article.
Ms Burke provided a copy of the article to Mr Moore.
Mr Moore agreed that the article referred to an Arthur Cox ‘insider’ as a source.
Ms Burke put it to Mr Moore that the article contained scurrilous allegations and that it was obvious the article was referring to her.
Mr Moore stated: ‘I don’t see a causal link between your dismissal and this article.’
As Ms Burke continued cross-examining Mr Moore on the article, Ms O’Donnell, Chairman of the Labour Court, interjected expressing discontent with Ms Burke’s cross-examination on the article.
Ms O’Donnell queried the relevance of the article to anything in the case, stating: ‘Where is this going?’
Mr Ward SC, Counsel for Arthur Cox LLP, expressed opposition to the continued cross-examination of Mr Moore on the article.
Ms O’Donnell directed that Ms Burke would be permitted to ask only one further question regarding the article.
Ms O’Donnell stated that the Labour Court would rise for a few minutes to allow Ms Burke to formulate the one further question she would be permitted to ask on the article.
Following the adjournment, Ms Burke submitted to Ms O’Donnell that questions were being limited by the Labour Court on an important element of the case. She emphasised that the RollonFriday article had only been opened for a matter of minutes when she had been interrupted by the Chairman. Ms Burke described the ruling of the Labour Court permitting only one further question as ‘extraordinary’.
Resuming her cross-examination of Mr Moore, Ms Burke stated: ‘I put it to you Mr Moore that this article contains many religious references. It speaks of a ‘Christian lawyer’ and ‘the blood of the Lamb’. The article includes a religious picture and references ‘God’ and ‘the Messiah’. The tags at the bottom are ‘Arthur Cox’ and ‘Christian’. Doesn’t it refer extensively to Christian belief and that ties in with why I was dismissed?’
Mr Moore countered: ‘At the risk of repeating myself, neither me nor the firm, in relation to the final point of your Christian belief, they are rejected. They are categorically rejected by me and on behalf of the firm.’
Ms Burke continued: ‘And overall you acted in a manner that was fundamentally destructive to my prospects of ever being employed as a solicitor again in Ireland or further afield.’
Mr Moore responded: ‘I could not accept that. The only thing that affected you was the actions you took yourself. Ms D’Alton said the market for finance associates was hot. I reject your position.’
Mr Moore also gave evidence that many former Arthur Cox employees left the firm to successfully continue their employment as solicitors elsewhere.
Ms Burke countered: ‘But those employees who leave Arthur Cox and get a job somewhere else, they are not thrown out on the street on a winter’s night.’
Mr Moore stated: ‘I do not agree that you were thrown out on a cold winter’s night. I recognise that summary dismissal is extremely rare. But the fact pattern was beyond everything I have previously encountered.’
Questioning of Mr Geoff Moore by the Labour Court:
Mr Bell asked Mr Moore who he spoke to prior to making the decision to dismiss Ms Burke.
Mr Moore responded that he had spoken to Mr Shannon.
‘You really only spoke to Mr Shannon,’ continued Mr Bell.
Mr Moore responded: ‘Yes, but for completeness, it is slightly unusual that I did not speak to others, but Mr Shannon was not just Ms Burke’s sponsor but also the practice group leader.’
‘Did you ask Mr Shannon, did the other partners actually take their concerns up with Ms Burke directly, never mind the disciplinary procedure?’ asked Mr Bell.
Responding Mr Moore stated: ‘No. I didn’t. I know from both my discussion with and hearing of Ms Hennessy, she did not take it up. She had one interaction. It did not go further. From Mr Shannon’s evidence, Mr Lynch did not take it up. Rightly or wrongly, he did not follow up on the interactions. Mr Shannon attempted to do so.’
Mr Bell asked: ‘Ms Burke was seemingly unaware of concerns and a lack of satisfaction. You make a decision to end her employment. For me looking to it, did you speak to this person about your concerns? You did not.’
Mr Moore responded: ‘I did not ask them to speak about it to Ms Burke. Mr Shannon indicates that he did try and find out.’
Mr Bell continued: ‘You were due to make the decisions. You say you did not use the procedure. But under Statutory Instrument 146/2000, I am understanding you are familiar with it. You were having conversations with HR. Did you not have a consideration of your obligations under that?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘Yes, we did. We considered the disciplinary process. This was a unique fact pattern. It is what it is and says what it is. There was no ideal outcome from the firm’s perspective. I had a significant concern regarding which the passage of time has proved me correct.’
Mr Bell asked if the company had ever dismissed an employee like this previously.
Mr Moore responded: ‘No. In my knowledge, I cannot think of any fact pattern where we dismissed like that.’
Ms O’Donnell then questioned Mr Moore: ‘The manner in which we were told the dismissal took place was summary, yet the letter of dismissal makes no mention of summary dismissal. It says ‘the breakdown of your relationship with certain partners’. She was told it was a no fault dismissal and that she had not done anything wrong. Surely, she was entitled to know that she was summarily dismissed. She was marched out of the building. You knew, but there is nothing here. There is an obligation to tell the employee if they are being summarily dismissed. That is a bit disingenuous. If you are summarily dismissing an employee, you need to tell them that. You should say summary dismissal in the letter.’
Mr Moore answered: ‘I do not mean to be disingenuous. Far from it. By summary dismissal, I mean dismissal in a manner that does not follow the process.’
The Chair continued: ‘Why pretend it is something it is not in the letter. Why was Ms Burke told it was a no fault dismissal?’
Mr Moore responded: ‘Perhaps we worded the letter clumsily. We were not looking to sunder Ms Burke’s relationships or confidence elsewhere.’
Conclusion:
The case stands adjourned to a later date.
