Under the terms of undertakings given to the High Court yesterday, a senior employee of a refrigeration company who is paid about £140,000 a year will continue to be paid until his action against the company is resolved.
Mr Anthony Burke (51), Roscam, Galway, has taken proceedings against Thermo King Ireland Ltd, Mervue, Galway; and Thermo King Corporation, Minnesota, US. The full action is fixed for hearing in October.
An application was brought yesterday on behalf of Mr Burke for a number of orders, including injunctions restraining the defendants denying him his remuneration and other emoluments as controller-Europe, Africa and Middle East (EAME) pending a full hearing.
Mr Justice Kearns said he would be in a position to give a date for a full hearing of the case in early October and asked if undertakings could be given pending the conclusion of such a hearing.
The defendants gave undertakings that Mr Burke would continue to be paid a sum equivalent to his wage package pending the full hearing.
Mr Burke undertook that, if not successful at the action, he would repay such an amount to the defendants. Mr Justice Kearns fixed the hearing for October 10th.
Mr Tom Mallon, for Mr Burke, said his client had been with Thermo King for 22 years and was promoted on a number of occasions. His salary was nearly £80,000 and with bonuses, VHI payments, a car and other items, the total value of his package was between £140,000 and £150,000 a year.
In an affidavit, Mr Burke said he had a meeting on January 17th last with Mr Christy Hayes, managing director of Thermo King Ireland and Mr Clayton Jacoby, controller for Thermo King International.
They informed him they were not satisfied with his performance, made it clear they wished him to leave and said they would negotiate a severance package.
Mr Burke said he was shocked by the turns of events. The immediate attempt to engage him in discussions on an exit package was a clear indication that Mr Hayes and others at senior level with Thermo King Corporation had determined he should be removed from his post.
He set out his full response to allegations against him in a memorandum on March 3rd last. At a meeting on March 28th, Mr Hayes handed him a letter terminating his employment. He believed that if the defendants were permitted to proceed with his dismissal he would suffer irreparable and immediate loss and damage.
In an affidavit, Mr Hayes said he was informed that Mr David Coughlan - who until August 1999 was Mr Burke's immediate superior - had on several occasions spoken to him about specific matters of concern, in particular meeting work objectives.
Mr Hayes said he did not want to use the affidavit as a means of criticising Mr Burke, but concerns about his overall style of management and attitude were real.
However, it was a mark of the company's acknowledgement of Mr Burke's contribution that it was willing to make him a generous ex gratia payment beyond his legal entitlements upon termination of his employment.
The company considered that Mr Burke could not be continued in his role as controller as it would not be in the best interests of the company or its staff.
There was an unfortunate breakdown of the necessary trust and confidence essential in the employment relationship.
Mr Ercus Stewart SC, for the defence, said Mr Burke had been paid until the end of June and had been given two to three months' salary on top of that.