A High Court judge yesterday threatened to order immediately the imprisonment of Mr Michael Fingleton, chief executive of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, unless he gave unequivocal undertakings about the continued employment and treatment of the society's manager in its Cavan town branch.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said that in the absence of such an undertaking he would also order the imprisonment of Ms Sharon Vize, an official of the society, and appoint sequestrators to take possession of the society's assets.
When Mr Michael Forde SC, counsel for the society, said he was in a position to give the undertakings requested, Mr Justice Kelly put a stay on his orders until the trial of an action between the defendants and Mr Sean Martin, the society's manager in Cavan.
Mr Martin, of The Commons, Belturbet, had sought the imprisonment of Mr Fingleton and Ms Vize and the sequestration of assets for contempt of court in relation to orders previously made by Ms Justice Macken.
He claimed that, in contempt of orders made by Ms Jutice Macken relating to his continued employment, the society had proceeded to dismiss him.
The undertakings given to the court yesterday were that the defendants would restore Mr Martin to the position of manager, remunerate him for the work he ought to have been doing since his purported dismissal on June 18th and refrain from further breaching Ms Justice Macken's orders.
Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Martin, said that on March 8th Ms Justice Macken had ordered that, until trial of the action, the society permit Mr Martin to remain as branch manager. She restrained it from appointing anyone in his place.
Since then, on the grounds that he had carried on alternative employment as an auctioneer and on alleged grounds of under-achieving as manager, the society had gone ahead, mainly in his absence, with a disciplinary procedure which had resulted in his receiving a letter of dismissal.
Mr Justice Kelly said the society had brought a motion seeking to discharge the orders made in favour of Mr Martin on the basis that his earlier suspension by the society had gone on too long and was oppressive. Ms Justice Macken had not made any order restricting the society from continuing with disciplinary proceedings. He said the society was entitled to continue these proceedings and had done so. On June 18th it had terminated his employment, sought the return of the office keys and Visa card and the society's car.
In his view, there could be no doubt the letter was in breach of the orders made by Ms Justice Macken and a contempt of court.
It had been said on behalf of the society that it had continued with its disciplinary proceedings and had received little or no co-operation from Mr Martin. He had failed to turn up for a disciplinary hearing and that failure justified his dismissal.
Mr Martin was the beneficiary of a court order and was entitled to the comforts of that until it had been discharged by the court. The society had been enjoined from doing precisely what it had done on June 18th with the knowledge of legal advisers. It was inconceivable, he said, how anybody could have been in the slightest doubt as to the effect of Ms Justice Macken's order. "If the Irish Nationwide Building Society had felt Mr Martin was abusing the order or making life impossible for them, then their course was clear. They could have come back to court at any time and sought to have the order dissolved or varied." Instead, they had taken the law into their own hands and decided they would proceed with his dismissal. He could only have been dismissed in the teeth of Ms Justice Macken's order. He did not find their behaviour in the slightest bit impressive.
He said the defendants' motion to vary Ms Justice Macken's order had been grounded on the very act of contempt they had committed in dismissing Mr Martin. It was a tall order to come to court and ask the court to vary its order on the grounds that the defendants themselves had been in breach of that order.
He said he would proceed to make orders committing Michael Fingleton and Sharon Vize to prison until such time as they had purged their contempt, and he would appoint sequestrators over the assets of the society in the absence of clear and unequivocal undertakings restoring Mr Martin to the position which had maintained prior to June 18th. He said his orders did not restrain the society from continuing with any disciplinary proceedings which it was entitled to undertake pursuant to its contractual relationship with Mr Martin. If, on foot of such procedures, it decided it was legally entitled to dismiss him, it clearly could not do so without further recourse to the court. He awarded costs to Mr Martin.