Day 143 - 27 Jun 95 - Page 64
1 enquire into whether this person had suffered any injustice
2 or discrimination in any way?
3 A. I can tell you that neither I nor my people did that.
4 This was not an employment relationship. I only get
5 involved in employment relationships.
6
7 Q. Who would have investigated on behalf of McDonald's whether
8 Mr. Miller suffered any injustice or discrimination?
9 A. This area would be handled by our Franchising
10 Department or our Legal Department. I have tried to make
11 it clear to you, sir, that my area is in the employment
12 area with regard to employees. This man was clearly not an
13 employee. That is out of my jurisdiction. I do not get
14 involved with non-employees.
15
16 Q. He was a trainee -- all right, we will leave that.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me make sure I have it right?
19 A. Yes, my Lord.
20
21 Q. The anecdote I delivered was because the judge in that case
22 was considering a pure point of law. The House of Lords
23 were not reconsidering the facts and they were not saying:
24 "What would we do if we were just asked to do what was
25 fair?" They were considering what some point of law was
26 and I cannot remember anything more about it. As
27 I understand it, what you are saying (and I will have to
28 consider what further evidence there is, if any, on this),
29 what you were asked was to say what the legal ramifications
30 were?
31 A. Yes, my Lord.
32
33 Q. If you were just charged with saying what was fair for
34 Mr. Miller, were you asked to offer an opinion on that?
35 A. No, my Lord.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you ask is this, Mr. Morris,
38 and then if you get no reward, I suggest you leave it.
39 I can see that it might be argued that if a franchisee
40 stays doing work which is useful to the Company for a very
41 large number of hours which might be thought to go beyond
42 that which is necessary to train him if he is going to be
43 successful at all, do you understand ---
44 A. Yes.
45
46 Q. -- in his application or plan to be franchisee ---
47 A. Yes.
48
49 Q. -- then the reality of the relationship has changed, he can
50 no longer really be treated as someone who is merely
51 preparing him to be a franchisee, but the Corporation is,
52 in fact, using him as unemployed labour; do you see what
53 I mean?
54 A. I understand the issue.
55
56 Q. I can see that someone might well mount an argument, but
57 did that come into your considerations or not?
58 A. We are now digging into the legal considerations, whose
59 benefit was the work for? Was it for the benefit of the
60 person becoming the operator or was it for the benefit or
