Day 139 - 21 Jun 95 - Page 44
1
2 Q. If you like.
3 A. OK. Probably a total of eight, nine days, somewhere in
4 that area.
5
6 Q. So, in fact, things could have been going on that you did
7 not know about?
8 A. That is absurd. No. I knew what was going on, sir.
9
10 Q. Why is it absurd not to know about what was going on in a
11 franchise?
12 A. Because I was sufficiently involved and communicated
13 with the licensee. I was in the hearing, as I mentioned.
14 Anything and everything that was going on was talked about
15 at those times.
16
17 Q. Did this franchisee have -- was there anything about this
18 franchisee or the particular store that was unusual as far
19 as a McDonald's store is concerned?
20 A. No.
21
22 Q. Why should it bother you that a franchisee might have --
23 the crew members in a franchise store wish to join a union?
24 A. It does not bother me, but if I am asked to provide
25 some consulting advice to help the licensee through a
26 matter that he has not knowledge about, to work with his
27 lawyer and give him whatever assistance or information, if
28 for no other purpose than, frankly, to cut down the amount
29 of legal bills he will have to pay an outside lawyer, I
30 will do it. It is part of the service that is provided to
31 the Company in many, many different areas when they ask for
32 consulting advice.
33
34 Q. If you read the next paragraph on that page that you had in
35 front of you, McDonald's 8?
36 A. Excuse me, McDonald's what?
37
38 Q. The McD8 page.
39 A. OK.
40
41 Q. If you read the bottom paragraph about Canada?
42 A. Canada? OK.
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, again, I am afraid I intervene on the
45 same ground: no witness statement, no pleading.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is what you are getting at here -- let me
48 just read it.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I deliberately intervened before any
51 question was asked.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, but I have to decide whether your
54 intervention is justified or not. I want to read the
55 paragraph first. (Pause)
56
57 I assume your point, Mr. Morris, is that it has been put
58 forward as part of the evidence in McDonald's case that
59 employees of the Company or its franchisees are not any
60 better off if they are represented by unions, and you want
