BORD na MONA is to take nob action over the controversy surrounding its chief executive's remuneration package until a second report by accountants Price Waterhouse has been completed.

Mr Pat Dineen, the chairman of the company, said early this morning after a hastily convened, six hour board meeting, that the second report into Dr Eddie O'Connor's pay arrangements should be completed within a week.

Dr O'Connor's annual remuneration package was worth between £150,000 and £200,000 over the past three years, even though his basic salary ranged from only £58,616 to £65,618 over the period under the Gleeson pay limits for executives of state companies.

The second report, which Mr Dineen said was requested by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, will cover the nine year term that Dr O'Connor has been in office.

Mr Dineen was speaking after last night's board meeting in Dublin, called to discuss the controversy surrounding Mr O'Connor's remuneration package.

The meeting broke up just after mid night with the departing directors refusing to comment.

On his way into the meeting Dr O'Connor appeared to reject any suggestion that his position was under threat. He made no comment when leaving the meeting.

Shortly afterwards Mr Dineen issued a short statement.

"The board, at its meeting tonight, considered further the Price Waterhouse report and media coverage over the past days.

"Price Waterhouse is preparing further information for the board and this is expected shortly. It will be considered by the board and a report will be given to the Minister.

"I would like to confirm that the board and management are united in their determination to continue the successful running of the company in the best interests both shareholder, our own excellent workforce, our customers and other stake holders.

"We are particularly keen to stress this as we will be announcing improved results shortly".

Mr Dineen added that the non executive directors of the company had agreed not to seek a meeting with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr Lowry, over the matter until they had seen the second report.

Three non executive directors Mr Sean Burke, Ms Anne Counihan and Mr Gerard Callanan had sought a meeting last Friday in order to explain to the minister that they were unaware of the extent of Mr O'Connors remuneration.

However the four worker directors had complained that the meeting with Mr Lowry was being requested without being considered by the full board.

Mr Dineen refused to comment, this morning, on whether the board had been fully informed over the size of Mr O'Connor's remuneration and its breaching of the Gleeson guidelines.

Mr O'Connor has maintained that all the elements of his package were agreed with the previous chairman, Mr Brendan Halligan, Mr Dineen said, last night, that Mr Halligan had written to him" offering to co-operate fully.

The chairman also declined to comment on why the company paid £15,000 last year in settlement of tax owed on unvouched expenses claimed by Dr O'Connor. The matter was being addressed said Mr Dineen, but he refused to say if Dr O'Connor had been asked to repay the money.

The extent of the unvouched expenses claimed by Dr O'Connor came to light in the first Price Waterhouse report.

It showed that Dr O'Connor received £141,000 in expenses during the three years to last March. Of these, £39,000 was paid without receipts having to be produced by Dr O'Connor.

Another £14,500 was identified as "extra to business expenses" by Price Waterhouse.

Other elements of Dr O'Connor's package covered by the report included £13,353 to cover flights, of which £5,101 were deemed to be benefits.

There was also a payment of £4,000 for a car for Dr O'Connor's wife for an 18 month period starting in 1990.

At a meeting at the company's headquarters in Newbridge yesterday, the group of unions were briefed by company management on Dr O'Connor's remuneration package.

In a statement afterwards, the group of unions said they agreed with the worker directors that the package was an issue "which should be left to the board to resolve."