Day 151 - 10 Jul 95 - Page 28
1 22nd March. 76 seems OK. 22nd February, that was before
2 my time, so I would not like to even hazard a comment on
3 that. But I would have to find out the reasons, if I was
4 presented with these payslips -- on the assumption that
5 Siamak was working every single week or they were regularly
6 over 39 -- about why. He may, you know, have been asking
7 for it himself, rather than the fact that the store were
8 anything short. I mean, I could not even hazard a guess
9 this far back.
10
11 Q. Did you not investigate this at the time?
12 A. I do not remember this case being bought to my
13 attention or me thinking that this was excessive, to be
14 honest, but it is a long time ago.
15
16 Q. You do not remember this incident as incredibly unusual?
17 A. I do not remember the incident.
18
19 Q. But if it never happens that crew are scheduled more than
20 39 hours a week, or they work more than 39 hours a week,
21 expect in extremely rare circumstances, would this not
22 stick out like a sore thumb?
23 A. To take the first part first, then, assuming that the
24 manager had scheduled, then, yes, it would have stuck out.
25
26 Q. You do not recall it?
27 A. I do not recall it sticking out. So maybe, then, the
28 second point of investigation for me would be to ask why,
29 if Siamak was asking for the hours, or there was any bout
30 of sickness or there were a load of holidays at the time.
31 As I mentioned earlier on, this would then provide me with
32 a reason to have a look at it. I cannot remember if it
33 stood out or whether or not I looked at it. It is a
34 complete memory failure.
35
36 I certainly, again, look at 17th May, 1986, and see there
37 is a Bank Holiday in there of 10 hours. So, once again,
38 I would stand to be corrected by my Human Resources people,
39 but I am pretty sure then that if you were a full-time
40 employee and you worked a Bank Holiday, you were given
41 eight hours as well or a sort of full shift.
42
43 Q. Even if that is the case, Mr. Stanton (which I would not
44 accept), it would still be more than 39 hours a week, would
45 it not, because that would only take you down to 84?
46 A. Certainly, yes; if I was to divide by two, yes.
47
48 Q. These did not stick out like a sore thumb, Mr. Stanton,
49 because it was a regular occurrence, was it not, that crew
50 worked more than 39 hours a week?
51 A. One person out of 55.
52
53 Q. One person's records who we happen to have, who you do not
54 recall this being an unusual incident. (sic) That is
55 because it was not unusual, was it?
56 A. This has stuck out. It would have been unusual,
57 certainly. As I say, I cannot remember if it caused me to
58 do any investigation. But one out of a payroll of 55 would
59 strike me as a symptom, but not necessarily a big wider
60 problem.
