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.
