Day 142 - 26 Jun 95 - Page 52


     
     1        membership.  It apparently -- and I am making some big
     2        assumptions now because of what the Mayor got involved
     3        with -- must have been meeting with lack of success because
     4        when I met with the Mayor he wanted McDonald's to recognise
     5        the union in what they call a "sweetheart arrangement"
     6        without the wishes of the employees being heard.  As a
     7        matter of fact, I met with his assistant prior to meeting
     8        with him.  I was scheduled to meet with the Mayor, his
     9        assistant came instead and he advised me that they wanted
    10        McDonald's to recognise the union in the sweetheart
    11        arrangement.  I told the Mayor's assistant (I am trying to
    12        think of his name right now, it will come to me in a
    13        moment) that McDonald's will clearly abide by all the laws
    14        and legal requirements, but he was asking us to do
    15        something that, under the law, was improper, and that is
    16        recognising a union that does not represent your people is
    17        improper.  I advised him of that and I said that we would
    18        do everything that we should do under the law both ways,
    19        but that we would not do something that was contrary to the
    20        law, and that is that the Mayor's assistant should not be
    21        asking McDonald's to do something that was contrary to the
    22        law.  With that and after a conference he had with the
    23        Mayor, the assistant came back, spoke with me and said: "We
    24        understand McDonald's position.  We would not ask
    25        McDonald's to do something contrary to the law", and that
    26        they understood McDonald's position.  That was the end of
    27        it.
    28
    29   Q.   Why was the Mayor involved with this?
    30        A.  It appeared that a great deal of his support came from
    31        the unions in Philadelphia at that time.
    32
    33   Q.   The West Coast meeting at Santa Barbra in California ----
    34        A.  Yes.
    35
    36   Q.   What was that concerning?
    37        A.  That was with Company executives and dealt with --
    38        I was asked to do a presentation on the National Labour
    39        Relations Act because that was my experience, and what the
    40        respective obligations are of all parties in a union
    41        organising matter.  It was a training session for
    42        McDonald's executives on the do's and don'ts as required by
    43        the law.  McDonald's did not have an in-house labour
    44        attorney at that time and were seeking to become more
    45        knowledgeable.  I also believe they were taking a look at
    46        me from a standpoint of whether or not they wanted to hire
    47        me, although that only became apparent later.
    48
    49   Q.   So this would have been towards the end of 1973?
    50        A.  It would have been in 1973, yes. 
    51 
    52   Q.   It would have been whilst the big dispute was going on in 
    53        San Francisco with the lie detectors and Board of Permit
    54        Refusing licences to McDonald's and things like that?
    55        A.  I had nothing to do with that.  I am not an expert on
    56        polygraphs or any of that.  That was not a subject at that
    57        meeting.  The meeting exclusively had to do with matters
    58        pertaining to the National Labour Relations Act, not as to
    59        anything concerning polygraphs.
    60

Prev Next Index