Mr James Gogarty was of an extremely irascible and litigious nature, capable of carrying out small-type work, but incapable of delegating, it was alleged in an affidavit read yesterday.
In the affidavit by Mr Liam Conroy, sworn in 1989 in unfair dismissal proceedings against the Murphy Group, the former JMSE chief executive, now deceased, said that JMSE in 1980 contracted for a major contract for an electricity generating station to the value of £10 million. The then MD was "one J. Gogarty".
The contract began to get into severe trouble, and Mr Joseph Murphy snr became increasingly depressed. Mr Conroy then worked two days a week for him and he (Conroy) head-hunted a competent engineer/manager to run JMSE.
"The big difficulty in attracting a suitable person was the reputation of J. Gogarty as being virtually impossible to work with. With Mr Murphy's agreement, I effectively sidelined Gogarty by giving him work remote from the steel company," Mr Conroy said in the affidavit.
Mr Conroy joined JMSE as chief executive in 1983 at a salary of £1,000 a week plus car etc. The UK group comprised some nine trading companies, and the MD was virtually illiterate, the affidavit alleged.
"All the staff was blindly loyal to Mr Murphy - a loyalty based on high salary and bonuses - but were incapable of change. There was complete lack of leadership due to Mr Murphy's absence," Mr Conroy said.
From 1982 to October 1987, Mr Murphy rarely, if ever, appeared in London.
Mr Conroy said he reorganised Plastic Insulated Cables (PIC) which in 1984 was losing £300,000 per annum, but in 1989 Mr Conroy estimated its value was £4 million to £5 million.
In 1985 Mr Conroy got married. Mr Murphy suggested he be given a 10 per cent interest in the trading companies with the trusts with a "buy back" clause.
The relationship between himself and Mr Murphy was very good up to October 1987. At this point Mr Murphy, despite having retired, started to become involved in the activities of the companies in Ireland and Britain.
Mr Gogarty started investigating various contracts and the expenses of the MD and other executives.
"Half-truths ascertained in this way were were conveyed back to Mr Murphy," Mr Conroy said. When Mr Conroy investigated with an accountancy firm, they proved to be unfounded.
After that, Mr Murphy constantly interfered with his instructions to staff and undermined his authority, Mr Conroy alleged.
"He [Murphy] criticised the newly qualified staff I had recruited over the previous three years and appeared anxious only to be involved in the type of work he was conversant with in the 1970s. He would not accept that methods of working must change, and much more efficiency in management was necessary if the company was to survive," Mr Conroy stated.