Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 70


     
     1        further down, "3 out of 4", three further down "1 out of 4"
     2         -- that includes Danny Olive, by the way -- then "1 out of
     3        4", "2 out of 3", then five further down, "3 out of 4", and
     4        three further down "3 out of 4".  That seems to be seven
     5        out of 18 were behind schedule.  Do you accept that?
     6        A.  Well, no, because there is, obviously, some of them
     7        have -- you cannot say it is 17 out of 18, if you look at
     8        the overall review.
     9
    10   Q.   Sorry, seven, seven of the 18 people had not had their PRs
    11        completed when they should have done?
    12        A.  By the date of the audit, yes.
    13
    14   Q.   By the date of the audit, yes.  OK.  Actually, I am not
    15        sure of the date of the audit.  It says 6.10.94.
    16        A.  6.10.94.
    17
    18   Q.   If we look back at 181, which is 18th February 94, yes, we
    19        have "0 out of 1", "1 out of 3", two down, "1 out of 3", 3,
    20        two down again, "2 out of 3", "0 out of 1", then go five
    21        down, "0 out of 2", six down "0 out of 1", "1 out of 3" and
    22         "3 out of 4".  So, on that page, eight out of 18 were
    23        behind?
    24        A.  Well, a total of 30 -- according to the figures, the
    25        figure that is totalled down, 35 out of 46 have been
    26        completed.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  What Mr. Morris is just putting, in
    29        relation to eight of the 18 staff, have their performance
    30        reviews fallen behind at the time of the audit?
    31        A.  That is correct.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  Would you accept that this practice of performance
    34        reviews being completed late -----
    35        A.  If we examine that page, it says 18th February, and a
    36        performance review should be carried out on three of the
    37        individual members by -- they started on 19/1/94, so they
    38        should have been carried out on the 12th; so they have
    39        missed that by approximately a week, three individual
    40        members of staff.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Explain that.
    43        A.  If we take, for instance, the top one, Dave Watts,
    44        start date is 19/1/94, so he should have a probationary
    45        review then after the three week period.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  So, he had not had his probationary review?
    48        A.  He just missed it by what the date of the audit is,
    49        18/4/94, which is -- 18/2/94, sorry.  So it missed that by
    50        approximately a week, I would say. 
    51 
    52   Q.   That involves getting a pay rise, does it not, after you 
    53        have had your -----
    54        A.  Probationary one, no.  It is an initial assessment of
    55        how you are performing within the Company within a period
    56        of three weeks; and that applies to Robert Easton and it
    57        applies to Nick Mills ---
    58
    59   Q.   So, was it a common -----
    60        A.  -- and Craig Tanner -- sorry, C. Todd.

Prev Next Index