Day 118 - 01 May 95 - Page 50
1 identify those under 18s who were working more than 48
2 hours ---
3 A. I did.
4
5 Q. -- automatically, did you not?
6 A. It did.
7
8 Q. No, it only recorded those who worked over 96 hours in a
9 two week period?
10 A. -----
11
12 Q. But there could have been 5,000 under 18s working more than
13 48 hours a week here and there throughout the year, and you
14 would not have known, would you?
15 A. We measured them in fortnightly periods because that is
16 the way the pay was produced, so 96 hours a week was the
17 flag, was the warning that people were working over, and if
18 you look at the documents that I have produced for you
19 although they I agree they are 1992, there was only about
20 three or four or five in the fortnightly period that were
21 over the 96. At that time there was no restriction.
22
23 Q. Yes, but there was a significant percentage over 79 hours,
24 was there not, which would give someone like you who cared
25 about ----
26 A. I do not think it is a significant percentage.
27
28 Q. Well we can argue whether 5 per cent is significant or
29 insignificant.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Morris, I am looking at them in different
32 compartments at the moment, the over 96 under 18s, because
33 that there is a question of illegality there. There is no
34 question of illegality working more than 39 hours in a
35 week. It may be a matter of policy and breach of policy
36 but they are very different, are they not, what is actually
37 illegal and what is just ----
38
39 MR. MORRIS: Except we would submit the lack of overtime was
40 illegal.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may be.
43
44 MR. MORRIS: What I am saying is that the fortnightly system is
45 guaranteed to conceal possible areas of illegality in the
46 number of hours worked by under 18s, and the lack of
47 overtime for any staff who worked over 39 hours?
48 A. I do not think it does.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is being put to you is it may be a big
51 number it may be a small number, but if you do not a weekly
52 check there may be a number which slips through who work
53 more than 48 in a week but less than 96 in a two-week
54 period for instance?
55 A. Yes I can see that could be a possibility. I do not
56 think it would happen, however, because people's hours were
57 more regular than that.
58
59 MR. MORRIS: For an employer that claims to be responsible would
60 you not say that was a completely irresponsible system?
