Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 61


     
     1        again"?
     2        A.  That is correct, and that gets into the area that my
     3        Lord is getting into, that discretion.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I only took the point because Mr. Stein, from
     6        time to time, has justified the fact that it could not have
     7        happened by saying union: "Well, the union would have been
     8        certified if that had happened" and that is what I was
     9        testing?
    10        A.  In out of fairness or another election.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  If I understood what you are telling us about
    13        American law, Mr. Stein, in effect what could happen is
    14        that you could get an imposed certification by NLRB which
    15        meant that, say, 80 or 90 per cent of the employees found
    16        they were represented by a union when they did not want to
    17        be?
    18        A.  That is correct.
    19
    20   Q.   Can we go back then to the statement Mr. Cantor?  I had
    21        finished with the words that there was a charge which he
    22        says, and you have denied, that the NLRB upheld illegal
    23        firing of Hughes and, he thinks, Jones.  It continues
    24        towards the end of the penultimate paragraph: "I also
    25        recall that other NLRB charges against the Company were
    26        upheld".  Were any of the charges upheld?
    27        A.  In order to uphold them, if you will, there would have
    28        to be hearings, a complaint issues, if you will.
    29
    30   Q.   Of course, you would have to make an adjudication, a
    31        finding?
    32        A.  Exactly.
    33
    34   Q.   It goes on: "and that McDonald's was instructed by the NLRB
    35        to post an official election guidelines, that included a
    36        promise not to interfere further with employees rights"."
    37        First, Mr. Stein, was any such instruction directed at
    38        McDonald's the Corporation?
    39        A.  No, not the Corporation.
    40
    41   Q.   Was any such instruction directed at Mr. Kelly?
    42        A.  There are notices that need to be posted during this
    43        period specifically outlining the rights of employees under
    44        the circumstances, yes.
    45
    46   Q.   Did this particular instruction not to interfere, and
    47        I assume the general guidelines says you must not interfere
    48        in the election and so on?
    49        A.  That is correct.
    50 
    51   Q.   Did this particular instruction contain the form of words, 
    52        for example, "I , Ralph Kelly, promise not to interfere 
    53        further with employees' rights"? Note that I stress the
    54        word "further".
    55        A.  No, sir.
    56
    57   Q.   Then, says Mr. Cantor: "If that was the stick, the carrot
    58        was the contests and celebrations for the parties designed
    59        to show the workers that Mickey Dees" -- whoever they may
    60        be -- "really was a great employer and that the workers

Prev Next Index