Day 140 - 22 Jun 95 - Page 66


     
     1        transcript of the, I think it would have been the day
     2        before when Mr. Rampton asked about it.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I will give you the reference where I was
     5        asking about this.  It is day 138, more or less from page
     6        25 onwards, but the questions I asked him -- there was one
     7        bad question that I asked, or your Lordship may think so,
     8        right at the bottom on page 26 and the answer at the top of
     9        page 27 about the authorship of the document.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We are nearing the normal close of play.  So
    12        what, again, I suggest is ask your other questions, come
    13        back to this in the morning when you have had time to check
    14        that.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  All right, just -- because I want to get this
    17        subject out of the way as fast as possible -- if we look at
    18        the documents we have in front of us now which is the
    19        Temple University; do you know Temple University?
    20        A.  Yes, I do.
    21
    22   Q.   By David Bartell PhD, Director of the Institute for Public
    23        Policy Studies?
    24        A.  I have no idea who he is.
    25
    26   Q.   He is a director of that Institute.  To summarise,
    27        basically, it concludes -- you can read it to yourself if
    28        you want to challenge it -- but it concludes, when
    29        analysing the PUP survey and looking at the situation as a
    30        whole and the progress of the dispute, "Let me state
    31        unequivocally I find your depiction of the wage
    32        differentials between city and suburbs in the fast food
    33        industry to be substantially accurate based on the
    34        methodology and samples you used".  That was on page 2, I
    35        am sorry.  He makes some criticisms of McDonald's for not
    36        disclosing the data that they were, which I will not bother
    37        to go into.  Were you aware of this at the time that the
    38        PUP had engaged some consultant to evaluate the situation?
    39        A.  No, Mr. Morris; no, not at all.
    40
    41   Q.   So you had not seen this?
    42        A.  I had not seen this.  It was not, as I look at it, it
    43        was not directed to me and I am positive that I was never
    44        sent a copy because I would have noticed it.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  This is, as it happens, about the time of the
    47        Philadelphia Inquirer articles as well but before the TPF&C
    48        survey results had come out?
    49        A.  It appears to be, my Lord.
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, this document has no evidential status. 
    52        I do not at all mind Mr. Morris using it as a basis for 
    53        cross-examination, but he should be directing any question
    54        apart from the one, "Have you seen it before?" -- which he
    55        has not -- a question about its effect to the witness, if
    56        it is to be of any value.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Maybe, but I am content with the situation as
    59        it is, because you have been asked if this was ever brought
    60        to your attention and the answer is "no"?

Prev Next Index