Day 139 - 21 Jun 95 - Page 39


     
     1        what happened is pretty much the account you have given
     2        over the dispute as to what the unit would be; and if the
     3        report does not expressly say that Hawaii and New York are
     4        McDonald's matters, I can see that other businesses
     5        altogether which had more than one outlet in an area might
     6        raise the same argument?
     7        A.  It is a common issue.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   That is what you said before.
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  How long had these size of units disputes or
    12        arguments been going on; had they been going on for
    13        decades?
    14        A.  Oh, absolutely.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Were they going on when you worked for the
    17        Board?
    18        A.  Yes, they were.  In fact, I wrote many; I was a hearing
    19        officer for many.  Absolutely, common.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  Can you remember at any time petitions being filed
    22        in New York regarding McDonald's and unions or franchisees?
    23
    24   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I think Mr. Morris is now fishing.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  I am entitled to ask.
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:   No, he is not entitled to ask.  He is now fishing
    29        for a case which he has not pleaded.  He has evidently had
    30        this document -- and it is only a document and a slanted
    31        document for which there is no evidence in support -- for a
    32        very long time.  It was open to him to have pleaded some
    33        kind of malpractice in New York, had he wished to do so.
    34        He has not done so.  He is now fishing.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well -----
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  That is ridiculous.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Quite apart from what Mr. Rampton has said,
    41        there are two things:  first of all, you have the witness
    42        has said he does not recall a dispute in Hawaii and
    43        New York; secondly, I do not read that as necessarily
    44        saying it was McDonald's in Hawaii in New York, as opposed
    45        to an argument which had been raised in some NLRB
    46        jurisdiction and a few in Hawaii and New York; and,
    47        thirdly, there is nothing there, on the face of what is
    48        written there, which suggests anything for which McDonald's
    49        could be criticised in Hawaii and New York.
    50 
    51   MR. MORRIS:  I am asking that the ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  That is why I said Mr. Morris is
    54        fishing.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You see, you have gone beyond -- if you have
    57        the basis of some allegation for Hawaii or New York, tell
    58        me about it, and we can decide whether you should have
    59        leave to amend formally or informally to bring it in at
    60        this stage.  If you read again what Neil LJ said, which is

Prev Next Index