The fate of the jobs of 477 workers at Whelan's Frozen Foods, a major supplier to Dunnes Stores, remains in the balance after the two companies disagreed before the High Court yesterday about whether their legal dispute had been settled or not.
Whelan's, whose only customer has been Dunnes for the past 25 years, has now taken out fresh proceedings aimed at enforcing what they say is a settlement of their action against Dunnes.
That action arose from Dunnes' alleged unilateral variation without reasonable notice of supply and warehousing contracts with Whelan's. Dunnes' actions over the past year, Whelans claimed, were calculated to force it out of business.
After three days of talks between the sides, Mr Paul Gallagher SC, with Mr Shane Murphy SC, for Whelan's, told Mr Justice Kevin Feeney yesterday that, "as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the case is now settled".
However, Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, with Mr Michael Cush SC, then told the judge: "My instructions are that the case is not settled." In the circumstances, the only order the court could make was to adjourn the proceedings generally with liberty to re-enter, Mr Gleeson said.
Mr Justice Feeney said that, as one side said there was a settlement and the other said there was not, the order suggested by Mr Gleeson was the appropriate order and he would adjourn the case with liberty to re-enter.
The action had been due to open on Tuesday morning but talks had continued between the sides since then until yesterday's development.
Outside court afterwards, Mr Paddy Whelan, managing director of Whelan's, said his company had instituted fresh proceedings to enforce the "settlement". Mr Whelan also acknowledged that uncertainty remained concerning the jobs of his employees.
In its proceedings, Whelan's Frozen Foods, Park West, Dublin, alleged Dunnes had, from the second half of 2005 to now, conducted a concerted effort to put Whelan's out of business, either intentionally or as an illegitimate tool to drive down Whelan's rates by unilaterally breaking agreements and withholding millions of euro from Whelan's.
It contended that last January it had received some €14 million in cheques from Dunnes and that some 75 per cent of that sum represented monies "wrongfully withheld" by Dunnes from Whelan's.
Whelan's has been a major supplier to Dunnes for more than 25 years and was set up in 1981 to supply and warehouse products for Dunnes, its only customer.
The dispute between the companies arose after Whelan's claimed that Dunnes had unilaterally and without reasonable notice altered the terms of contracts between the companies in a manner that could lead to Whelan's being forced out of business.
Whelan's said reasonable notice was in the order of some some 12 months, given the number of its employees and that it had invested more than €15 million in its business.
In its defence, Dunnes denied there was at any time a legally enforceable agreement in the nature of a contract between the two companies. If there was a contract, which was denied, Dunnes was entitled to make a unilateral variation of the rates payable to Whelan's, it pleaded.
Dunnes also argued that a period of reasonable notice of termination of a contract was not a period of at least 12 months. It denied it had withheld monies from Whelan's either for the purpose of driving down Whelan's business or at all.
While it had paid Whelan's some €14.1 million last January, that sum did not represent monies wrongfully withheld, as alleged, from Whelan's, it pleaded.
It denied exercising any economic duress against Whelan's, denied it had been unjustly enriched at Whelan's expense and denied it sought to undermine Whelan's independence.
Dunnes also brought a counterclaim, which included seeking repayment to it of some €820,000 that the High Court had ordered Dunnes last February to pay to Whelan's.
