PRICE Waterhouse will this week continue its investigation into the remuneration package of Dr Eddie O'Connor, Bord na Mona's managing director. Because the scope of the inquiry has been widened, it may take some weeks to complete, according to informed sources.

A spokesman for Mr Pat Dineen, Bord na Mona's chairman, yesterday said he had "no knowledge whatsoever" on a newspaper report which said two senior executives of the company had asked Dr O'Connor to resign in the interests of the company.

It is understood that chief finance officer, Mr John Hourican, and chief operations officer, Mr Paddy Huges, met Dr O'Connor on Thursday in the wake of reports, subsequently strongly denied, that trade union representatives were lobbying labour TDs to seek their support for Dr O'Connor. Neither Mr Hughes nor Mr, Hourican were available yesterday for comment.

The weekend newspaper report said Mr Hourican and Paddy, Hughes, sought the resignation. But Mr O'Connor refused. Mr Hourican and Mr Hughes were the two executives who publicly supported Dr O'Connor when the report on his remuneration over a three year period, first emerged.

A full report on the remuneration received by Dr O'Connor during his nine years in charge of Bord na Mona was requested by the Department of Transport of Transport, Energy and Communications after it emerged that he had received £53,000 in unvouched expenses over three years to the end of last March.

The original Price Waterhouse report said that Dr O'Connor received £141,000 in expenses over the past three years and over one third of these were paid with out receipts. And the company made a settlement payment of 1,000 to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of tax owed on his expenses in the tax years 1993/4 and 1994/5.

Another State body, the ESB, yesterday confirmed that it had made a £750,000 settlement payment to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of unvouched expenses paid to employees. The payment was made early in 1995 after a revenue audit in 1994.

Mr Joe Moran, ESB's chief executive, said it was a "button" of a payment and should be related to the contribution of £174 million the company made toward the State's finances in 1994. Of that payment, £71 million went on PRSI and income tax.

The payment to the Revenue Commissioners, he said, was not connected with senior management. It had, he stressed, to do with the interpretation of expenses - which were allowable against tax.

Many ESB employees use their own cars and the company had established a practice of giving an allowance on mileage, an allowance towards the capital cost of the car, and subsistence expenses.

A statement from the ESB explained that these arrangements, going over decades, were interpreted as not being subject to tax in the past. However, during the 1994 revenue audit, the "allowances, or part of them, were subjected to full taxation from April 1st 1995". The settlement was in respect of 10,000 employees.

The ESB board approved the settlement and decided that the company should carry the liability "in view of the fact that individual liabilities for the 10,000 staff could not be separated and established because of the number involved and the time period". The audit also covered the senior management. Their tax affairs, however, were found to be in order.

The ESB's biggest contribution to the exchequer was in VAT which amounted to £70 million In 1995. Rates cost the group £34 million.