Day 151 - 10 Jul 95 - Page 37


     
     1   Q.   But in terms of nationally or regionally, assuming that a
     2        20 to 80 per cent (which is the evidence which has been
     3        given to this court) is the ratio now, is there anything
     4        that would lead you to believe that that was not the ratio
     5        -- regionally, never mind a particular store might be
     6        unusual -- anything that would lead you to think that was
     7        different, five or 10 -----
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me ask it, Mr. Morris.
    10
    11        (To the witness)  Is there anything which has changed in
    12        the last 10 years which you think would have affected the
    13        general ratio part-time to full-time?
    14        A.  Right.  I know that in terms of the benefits -- again,
    15        this is Human Resources -- but, certainly, the benefits
    16        that now can accrue to some of the part-timers, we have
    17        book and scholarship awards that we can make.  So maybe
    18        that has helped our recruitment and retention of
    19        part-timers, which may have led to a higher proportion.
    20        So, yes, maybe that would have led to it.  I do not know if
    21        we started at A and, because of that, got to B, but
    22        certainly my intelligent estimate would suggest that maybe
    23        some of those benefits in terms of books, scholarships and
    24        grants, would certainly perhaps -- it would not mean it
    25        would decrease, that is for sure.
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  Are you telling me that something like 25,000
    28        part-timers, the fact there may be scholarships for 20 or
    29        30 people nationally, or something like that, is going to
    30        change the whole national ratio of full-time to part-time
    31        in the McDonald's system in the UK?
    32        A.  I would not suggest to you that it would make radical
    33        changes, but certainly in terms of trying to in see why a
    34        £250 award would make a difference to a student who --
    35        I suppose, to take your own terms -- was struggling to make
    36        ends meet and having to work for McDonald's, is not a bad
    37        incentive.
    38
    39   Q.   When you said on oath quite categorically that nobody at
    40        Colchester, no crew person up to the level of floor
    41        manager, worked over 39 hours, and that you checked and you
    42        would know, were you lying when you said that?
    43        A.  I was not.
    44
    45   Q.   Were you incompetent when you said that?
    46        A.  Not at all.  No person was scheduled to work more than
    47        39 hours; and in my job as a responsible area supervisor,
    48        it was part of my duty to check it out.
    49
    50   Q.   The reality is, then, that the only other option is that 
    51        you were just unaware in reality what was going on? 
    52        A.  If I take Siamak's case, it seems that I acted quite 
    53        rightly and reduced those hours, from your own evidence.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We have gone back to the argument.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:  OK.  You did not know of Mr. Alimi's situation when
    58        you gave your categorical evidence on oath, and -- well,
    59        you may have done or not, I suppose.  If we move on to
    60        something else.

Prev Next Index