The High Court dismissed John Keenan’s application for interlocutory injunctions requiring Iarnród Éireann to let him resume his duties as Director of Human Resources and preventing the company from removing him from the post. The court said Keenan continued to receive his salary and assumed that would continue. It allowed the company a reasonable period to investigate and said any disciplinary proceedings, if brought, should be advanced promptly.
Keenan was suspended on 3 December 2009 after Chief Executive Richard Fearn said he had lost confidence in him. Fearn’s stated reason was that Keenan had not promptly informed him of an Equality Officer’s decision against the company. The officer had found discrimination and victimisation in a complaint by an employee identified in the judgment as Ms M.M., and directed payment of €189,000 in compensation. The judgment noted the decision was under appeal and was also the subject of judicial review proceedings.
The company called Keenan’s suspension a “holding suspension”. The judge recorded that his office had been sealed, his communications access removed and he had been told not to return to work. At the time of the application, no formal disciplinary hearing had taken place, the precise charges and investigation remit were unclear, and no firm timetable had been given.
Keenan argued that the stated reason for his suspension was a pretext connected to his role in investigations into suspected fraud and financial losses. He alleged that senior company figures had sought to suppress information. Fearn and C.I.E. chairman Dr John Lynch denied acting improperly or applying pressure. Those disputes were not tested by cross-examination, and the judge expressly made no determination on them.
The company also raised allegations concerning access to employees’ email, medical-related correspondence and bank-account information, and the possible placement of a tracking device on a car. Keenan disputed that his authorised investigative work was secret or wrongful. The court treated these as unresolved allegations, not findings.
The judge concluded that Keenan had crossed the required “strong case” threshold for a mandatory interlocutory injunction, pointing to the suspension’s apparent reputational impact, lack of clear process and uncertain duration. But the court found the balance of convenience now fell against ordering his return. The relationship of trust and confidence had broken down amid serious allegations on both sides, which the court could not resolve at this interim stage.
The injunction applications were therefore dismissed. The judge said the court might reconsider intervention if the investigation or any resulting disciplinary process was not handled with due expedition, particularly if the suspension became prolonged or open-ended.