Day 142 - 26 Jun 95 - Page 52
1 membership. It apparently -- and I am making some big
2 assumptions now because of what the Mayor got involved
3 with -- must have been meeting with lack of success because
4 when I met with the Mayor he wanted McDonald's to recognise
5 the union in what they call a "sweetheart arrangement"
6 without the wishes of the employees being heard. As a
7 matter of fact, I met with his assistant prior to meeting
8 with him. I was scheduled to meet with the Mayor, his
9 assistant came instead and he advised me that they wanted
10 McDonald's to recognise the union in the sweetheart
11 arrangement. I told the Mayor's assistant (I am trying to
12 think of his name right now, it will come to me in a
13 moment) that McDonald's will clearly abide by all the laws
14 and legal requirements, but he was asking us to do
15 something that, under the law, was improper, and that is
16 recognising a union that does not represent your people is
17 improper. I advised him of that and I said that we would
18 do everything that we should do under the law both ways,
19 but that we would not do something that was contrary to the
20 law, and that is that the Mayor's assistant should not be
21 asking McDonald's to do something that was contrary to the
22 law. With that and after a conference he had with the
23 Mayor, the assistant came back, spoke with me and said: "We
24 understand McDonald's position. We would not ask
25 McDonald's to do something contrary to the law", and that
26 they understood McDonald's position. That was the end of
27 it.
28
29 Q. Why was the Mayor involved with this?
30 A. It appeared that a great deal of his support came from
31 the unions in Philadelphia at that time.
32
33 Q. The West Coast meeting at Santa Barbra in California ----
34 A. Yes.
35
36 Q. What was that concerning?
37 A. That was with Company executives and dealt with --
38 I was asked to do a presentation on the National Labour
39 Relations Act because that was my experience, and what the
40 respective obligations are of all parties in a union
41 organising matter. It was a training session for
42 McDonald's executives on the do's and don'ts as required by
43 the law. McDonald's did not have an in-house labour
44 attorney at that time and were seeking to become more
45 knowledgeable. I also believe they were taking a look at
46 me from a standpoint of whether or not they wanted to hire
47 me, although that only became apparent later.
48
49 Q. So this would have been towards the end of 1973?
50 A. It would have been in 1973, yes.
51
52 Q. It would have been whilst the big dispute was going on in
53 San Francisco with the lie detectors and Board of Permit
54 Refusing licences to McDonald's and things like that?
55 A. I had nothing to do with that. I am not an expert on
56 polygraphs or any of that. That was not a subject at that
57 meeting. The meeting exclusively had to do with matters
58 pertaining to the National Labour Relations Act, not as to
59 anything concerning polygraphs.
60
