Ex-Labour Court chairman subject to dignity-at-work complaint from senior official, WRC hears

A former chairman of the Labour Court was the subject of a dignity-at-work complaint by an ordinary member of the court, who now claims he was unfairly dismissed, the Workplace Relations Commission has heardPeter DR Murphy, who sat as a member of the Labour Court from 2005 to 2024 as a nominee of business group Ibec, is pursuing complaints alleging unfair dismissal and other rights breaches against the Minister for Enterprise. The State maintains Ibec did not nominate Murphy for a further term after his last warrant expired in 2024. Murphy’s legal team has said the Department did not seek replacement nominees from the business group when the warrant ran out. Murphy, a qualified solicitor, had been earning over €140,000 a year in the role. READ MOREMurphy alleged that he was subject to workplace bullying during his appointment, and specifically identified a former chairman in a formal dignity-at-work complaint, according to legal correspondence in 2020 opened to a hearing on Monday. Tara Coogan, a civil servant at the Department of Enterprise who was in charge of the section overseeing the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at the end of Murphy’s last term on the Court, gave evidence on the respondent’s preliminary objection to the case going ahead on Monday. Counsel for the State, Frances Meenan, asked Coogan about a legal letter of 5th October 2020 to former Minister for Enterprise Damien English from the complainants’ former solicitors, which was exhibited. In the letter, which was read out by Coogan, Murphy’s then-solicitors wrote: “Our client has grave concerns about recent steps regarding the renewal of his warrant.”The alleged change in practice was “not coincidental and is a direct response to certain recent events and issues raised by our client in respect of his working conditions, and the treatment he has been forced to endure in the workplace”, the letter continued. The letter stated that Murphy had raised statutory claims concerning “bullying, victimisation and other related matters” and had “also instituted internal complaint against the chairman of the Labour Court under the Civil Service dignity at work policy”. At that point, Meenan intervened and said: “We won’t mention any names.” Coogan said: “I don’t know anything about this letter.” Meenan said the State would present evidence that the complaints referenced in the letter “were subsequently withdrawn by the complainant.” Tiernan Lowey, appearing for the complainant instructed by John Dunne of McInnes Dunne Murphy said: “We’re happy for the letter to be read out in full.” The tribunal has heard Murphy received one further term on the court before his final warrant lapsed in February, 2024. Meenan, who appeared with Desmond Ryan, instructed by Joseph Dolan of the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, says it is the position of the State that Murphy was not an employee and that Mr Murphy has therefore no standing to pursue the claim. Meenan said appointment to the Labour Court was contingent on Murphy being put forward as a nominee by Ibec, and accordingly Murphy’s 19 years at the Labour Court came to an end, she added. However, Lowey said: “We don’t believe there ever was any correspondence from the Department or on behalf of the Department [to Ibec] when Murphy’s last warrant expired.”Lowey said Murphy “was never regarded as anything other than an employee of the Minister”. The complainant’s position is that it had become the custom and practice to renew warrants until a member of the court resigned, and only then seek three nominees. Meenan accepted the State had “a gap” in its supporting documentation, as copies of correspondence between the Department and Ibec asking the employers’ group to put forward a nominee for the court every time Murphy had been reappointed were not with its legal papers. She said the documents in question were “old paper files that are hard to get”. Adjudicator Christina Ryan said it was “unusual” that the State was not ready with the documents in question when it was making the nomination process a “central feature” of its case. She directed the State to produce the material and said the matter could be revisited when the case resumes on Wednesday. Murphy’s complaints are under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.