Day 151 - 10 Jul 95 - Page 26


     
     1
     2   Q.   You were not making checks on the records, were you,
     3        Mr. Stanton -- because there were crew that were working
     4        more than 39 hours a week on a regular basis?
     5        A.  I was making checks, and there were not crew who were
     6        working more than 39 hours.
     7
     8   Q.   There were not?
     9        A.  There were not.
    10
    11   Q.   Are you sure about that?
    12        A.  Yes.
    13
    14   Q.   Could you get Defendants' documents, Kingfisher blue,
    15        bundle 4?  It is not supplementary; it is the main
    16        bundle 4.  If we turn to tab 117.  It has just got "17" on
    17        the actual tab, but it is document 117.  These are some
    18        documents supplied by Mr. Alimi.  Did you know Mr. Alimi?
    19        A.  Yes -- Siamak.
    20
    21   Q.   If we start at the third page of that.  This is
    22        February 1986, which is just before you arrived; that is
    23        correct?
    24        A.  8/2/86, and I got there in March.
    25
    26   Q.   You arrived in March.  Do you see that the hours are
    27        88.84 hours?
    28        A.  Right, in the two weeks.
    29
    30   Q.   In the two weeks, yes, which must be a minimum -- well, if
    31        you divide that by two, it is 44 hours.  It may be that one
    32        week he worked 39 and the other week he worked more than
    33        15, or around 15.  The following payslip, 22nd February, is
    34        98.94 hours ---
    35        A.  Right.
    36
    37   Q.   -- for the fortnight.  The next one, 8th March, is actually
    38        76 hours.  He may have worked for one of those weeks more
    39        than 39 hours.  We cannot tell from this.  The following
    40        one is 22nd March, 1986, and it is 82.57 hours.  The one
    41        after that is 5th April, 1986, and it is 93.76 hours.  The
    42        previous two would have covered some of the time that you
    43        were there; is that correct?
    44        A.  Right.
    45
    46   Q.   The next one is 73.33 hours.  Again, we cannot tell whether
    47        or not one of these weeks was over 39.  The following one,
    48        3rd May, 1986, is 86.98 hours, which is at least 43 hours a
    49        week?
    50        A.  Right. 
    51 
    52   Q.   The next one, 17th May, is 92.36 hours? 
    53        A.  Yes, OK.
    54
    55   Q.   So over a period of around about three months, Mr. Alimi
    56        was regularly working more than 39 hours a week?
    57        A.  You cannot say that, as you have already said
    58        yourself.  One of the things I would have to do then is
    59        discover why, if I was presented with this evidence now, is
    60        find out why, for example, the total two weeks was 86.

Prev Next Index