Day 174 - 17 Oct 95 - Page 51
1 -- that is Mr. White --"'Go off and talk to John Burke.'"
2 He is ITGW, Mr. Burke, is he not?
3 A. Yes.
4
5 Q. "'.....and convey what I said'" -- that is Margaret Long,
6 I suppose. "Surely he was not intimating that Mr. Mehigan
7 was lying in what he said in his letter and verbal
8 suggestions, and surely it was not too much to ask to have
9 a meeting and to put proposals they (that is the union)
10 might have in writing."
11
12 I have two questions about that. What Margaret Long has
13 written there, did that at this stage represent your
14 position faithfully or not?
15 A. Yes, it did.
16
17 Q. The second question: did the union ever come back and
18 say: "Here are our written proposals. Now we would like to
19 have a meeting"?
20 A. No, they did not.
21
22 Q. Then please turn back in the file, forwards in time, in the
23 previous tab, to page 1060, where you should find a letter
24 from the Labour Court dated 19th March and addressed to
25 you. Have you got that?
26 A. Yes, I have.
27
28 Q. This is from Mr. Pompret, who says: "I am directed by the
29 Labour Court to inform you that the Irish Transport and
30 General Workers Union again on 8th March 1980 referred to
31 the court a dispute with Pantry Franchise Ireland
32 concerning implementation of the National Understanding."
33
34 At the date of this letter, or when you received it, as it
35 appears in the top righthand corner, on 21st March 1980,
36 were you conscious that you were in dispute with the ITGWU
37 or not?
38 A. No, I was not aware of the dispute.
39
40 Q. Please turn, then, to page 1062, which is your response
41 three days after receiving Mr. Pompret's letter,
42 24th March 1980.
43
44 "Dear Mr. Pompret, we acknowledge receipt", and so on. "We
45 are at a loss as to why the ITGWU are referring any dispute
46 to you, as they have not indicated to us that they have a
47 dispute with this Company."
48
49 Was that sentence true or false at the time when you wrote
50 it?
51 A. It is true.
52
53 Q. Following this letter of 24th March 1980, was the matter
54 ever referred to the Labour Court; was there ever a hearing
55 before the Labour Court?
56 A. No, not that I can recollect.
57
58 Q. One final thing, then, Mr. Mehigan. You told his Lordship
59 that at some stage during, at the end of or after -- you
60 were not sure -- the strike during the summer and early
