Redundancy from law firm ‘a sham,’ solicitor claims

A law firm's decision to make one of its associate solicitors redundant is "a sham", it has been claimed in the High Court.

Laurence Kearney, of The Richmond, Dublin 7, worked in the healthcare department at Byrne Wallace from 2006 and was informed in late August that he was being made redundant.

Mr Kearney wants injunctions restraining Byrne Wallace from implementing his purported dismissal from his position as a solicitor with the firm or treating him other than employed as a solicitor with it.

The firm, represented by Tom Mallon BL, opposed the application and said the redundancy was not a sham as alleged.

The injunction application was heard on Friday by Ms Justice Marie Baker, who reserved judgment.

Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Kearney, said the redundancy was “a sham” used by Byrne Wallace to avoid its legal obligations to his client.

The firm “continues to expand” and is recruiting solicitors for work Mr Kearney is qualified to do and his client’s position with the firm is “demonstrably not redundant”, counsel added.

In a sworn statement, Mr Kearney, who has bipolar mood disorder, said he had been earning €100,000 a year with the firm when he went out sick between July 2010 and September 2011.

Pay cut

When he returned to work, his salary was cut to €60,000 a year. While others at the firm had their salaries cut, the reduction was not as significant. He said he sought to get his pay restored but got a “modest” increase of an additional €5,000 per year.

He went out sick again between July 2013 and November 2015. He said he wanted to return to work but, despite being passed medically fit to do so, Byrne Wallace excluded him from the workplace from May 2016 onwards.

As a result, he brought separate proceedings aimed at directing Byrne Wallace to allow him return to work.

In late August, the firm informed him his “previous role was not available” and “no longer exists” and it had “no option” other than to regard his role as “redundant with immediate effect”, he said.

Mr Kearney said he had no alternative but to bring the action, despite the fact it will have implications for him personally and his career.

In opposing the proceedings, the firm said, when Mr Kearney returned to work, the amount of work available in the section he had been employed in was very limited. It had reduced its healthcare team from seven people to four by 2015 and was not seeking to new healthcare staff.

On his return to work, Mr Kearney was assigned different duties to those he was doing before he became ill and he was paid appropriately, it said.

Many employees were experienced significant salary reductions during the relevant period and Mr Kearney was not alone in this regard, it added.

The firm also argues the High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim concerning validity of a redundancy and the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission are the appropriate forums for such claims.