Day 133 - 12 Jun 95 - Page 53


     
     1        it by 39 but I am not sure.
     2
     3   Q.   Very well.  When we look at McDonald's I wanted to ask you
     4        the same question, and I will explain the reason, that when
     5        Mr. Nicholson was giving evidence there was some talk of
     6        figures there.  Mr. Nicholson did not know what the average
     7        weekly wage was, but he made, if my memory serves me
     8        correctly, some answer to the effect that it could be
     9        discovered, do you see?
    10
    11        What I want to ask you is whether the McDonald's figures
    12        are, in fact, if you took all the full-time male crew
    13        members, added up what they earned in the 48 weeks in a
    14        year, or whatever they worked, divided that by 48, you
    15        would come out with 85/80, or whether the 85/80 is a
    16        multiplicand of 220.  Do you understand what I am putting
    17        to you?
    18        A.  Yes, I do, and I think it is the latter which appears
    19        here.  I think it is the latter method.
    20
    21   Q.   So you think with McDonald's you start with the 220 and
    22        then multiply it by 39 or whatever and get 85/20 rather
    23        than having worked out the 85/20 as a basic figure?
    24        A.  Yes.
    25
    26   Q.   An original figure itself?
    27        A.  Mainly because so many people do different hours and
    28        are obviously paid for, you know, if they work 38 or 37.
    29        So I think that will be why they worked it out as just as a
    30        multiplication with the number of hours to make it a
    31        relevant comparison, I think, between the 39 and the other
    32        industries.
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I can tell your Lordship that McDonald's
    35        figures are exact; 39 multipliers of the figures in
    36        brackets in each case.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  That does not apply to the figures
    39        above.  For instance, if one takes an easy one, the 3.05,
    40        if you multiply that by 39, you do not get 119 -- do you?
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is 3.25 multiplied by 39, 127?
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:  Not quite because it is 3.25, something,
    47        something, something, something.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But essentially?
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  Essentially, they are multipliers of 39. 
    52 
    53   THE WITNESS:  I think it will have been the same methodology.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What Ms. Mead is saying in her answer then,
    56        which not everyone might have caught, was that it is the
    57        same methodology on the outside employers as on
    58        McDonald's.  For all I know, that is because the New
    59        Earnings Survey just gives the weekly averages rather than
    60        the annual averages -- I just cannot remember -- but it

Prev Next Index