The Irish regional executive of the ATGWU may launch a legal challenge to the union's suspension of two senior Irish officials. It is also expected to call a special delegate conference to discuss the issue.
The executive held an emergency meeting yesterday in Dublin, at which it called for the immediate reinstatement of the Irish regional secretary, Mr Mick O'Reilly, and regional organiser Mr Eugene McGloin by the British-based general secretary, Mr Bill Morris.
A senior member of the Irish executive, Waterford Crystal convenor Mr Jimmy Kelly, said after yesterday's meeting that it was rapidly becoming a dispute over how much autonomy the Irish region had.
In a statement after the meeting the regional executive said it had "authority to deal with all industrial and political matters arising from and affecting the membership in Ireland", and the authority to initiate legal proceedings, if necessary.
The parent union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, successfully blocked an earlier attempt by the regional committee to hold an emergency meeting on the suspensions.
Yesterday's meeting was called after a majority of Irish executive members endorsed the request in writing. Ten of the 23 members attended and another four sent written apologies.
The executive said the way Mr Morris had handled the suspensions "falls well below the minimum standards accepted, or acceptable" to members. It further deplored "the serious and sustained damage being done to the union by the general secretary's actions in the eyes of industry and other unions, particularly the ICTU".
No comment was available from Mr Morris yesterday. A spokesman for the general secretary said the investigation was part of an internal process and there would be no comment until it was completed.
Mr O'Reilly and Mr McGloin have been given until Friday to respond to a 240-page report drawn up by the union's deputy general secretary, Ms Margaret Prosser, listing complaints about how the union was run in Northern Ireland.
Originally, both men were given until July 27th to respond, but they protested that this would have given them only four days to reply to an investigation which took place over a six-month period.