Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 59
1 A. No. No-one was singled out as troublesome. Frankly,
2 they were pretty well behaved -- everybody was well
3 behaved.
4
5 Q. Then the second prong, apparently, "Develop programmes that
6 would increase employee support from management". Do you
7 know anything about that?
8 A. No, sir, nothing was created to do that.
9
10 Q. "In the first case", that is, seeking out, isolating the
11 trouble makers, "they", that is, McDonald's or Mr. Kelly,
12 I assume, "fired a couple of outspoken, pro-union workers,
13 Donald Hughes and Wendall Jones." Do you know anything
14 about that?
15 A. These guys were never fired. I do not know who Donald
16 Hughes was. That name does not ring a bell at all.
17
18 Q. What about Wendall Jones?
19 A. Wendall Jones does ring a bell because he was at the
20 NLRB hearings but he was never fired.
21
22 Q. He was never fired?
23 A. No.
24
25 Q. "And", says Mr. Canter, "especially tried to isolate and
26 undermine the efforts of a young black woman" -- you see
27 the word "black" there again -- "named Stephanie Douglas.
28 She was a star worker and could not be fired so they
29 changed her shift and otherwise reduced her ability to talk
30 with here co-workers". Do you know anything about that?
31 A. I never received any claims or knowledge of something
32 like this, no. If this would have happened, I would have
33 at least remembered the names.
34
35 Q. At any rate, if this wicked plot was put into effect in
36 this way, it is not something in which you for the
37 Corporation had any role to play?
38 A. No.
39
40 Q. "Hughes and I think Jones", says Mr. Canter, "eventually
41 won back pay from the Company after filing a charge at the
42 NLRB that they had been illegally fired". Do you anything
43 about that?
44 A. That never happened.
45
46 Q. If it had happened, would you expect to have heard about
47 it?
48 A. Yes, I would have, and the NLRB would have been very
49 upset and would have ordered Mr. Kelly to recognise the
50 union. One thing that the NLRB will not countenance is
51 terminating someone for union activity. If you do that,
52 you can expect to get certified.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have difficulty understanding that because
55 suppose you fired someone for union work, it would seem a
56 nonsense to me for the NLRB to order that the union be
57 certified when everyone else -- let us take an example
58 which is, no doubt, extreme -- who might be working in the
59 restaurant might positively not want to have a union?
60 A. That is correct.
