Day 181 - 01 Nov 95 - Page 47


     
     1        forgotten:  Mr. Turnbull, have you worked with him, I mean,
     2        your colleague, work colleague?
     3        A.  Yes, I have worked with him both as a Branch Secretary.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, you said he was the Branch Secretary
     6        when Warren Street cropped up?
     7        A.  That is right.  I cannot remember the precise year but
     8        1989, I believe, he became full-time officer.
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  Do you have a high regard for his ability and his
    11        reliability?
    12        A.  Yes, and also he was a chef.  I mean, you know, he has
    13        worked in the industry.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:   He did not talk about health and safety,
    16        Mr. Pearson.  Thank you.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause a moment.  Do you have much to ask
    19        in re-examination?
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I think we will be at least 20, 25 minutes,
    22        so it may be best to break.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will come back at 2 o'clock.  Remember, in
    25        re-examination it should only arise out of what has been
    26        said under cross-examination.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  I understand that.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In case anyone looks at my note over the
    31        mid-day adjournment, because I was not going to come back
    32        to it, I have noticed in the paragraph which starts "But
    33        if" -----
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, what are we looking at?
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I hope you had a copy of this in the break?
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  The one that you did yourself.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The second sentence:  "This assumes in favour
    42        of McDonald's that the overtime was between 7 a.m. and 7.00
    43        p.m.", and then it should be "or that the proper
    44        construction of paragraph 9.3".  But there we are.
    45        2 o'clock.
    46                        (Luncheon Adjournment)
    47
    48                      Re-examined by the Defendants
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   You were being asked about whether employees had to 
    51        be employed for either two or five years in order to get 
    52        redress under sort of unfair dismissal for trade union 
    53        activity.  In your experience, do many employers actually
    54        put down as their reason for sacking an employee that they
    55        have been dismissed for trade union activity?
    56        A.  If you are talking about an exit survey of the kind
    57        that we have examined earlier today, then the answer would
    58        be no.
    59
    60   Q.   Right.  In the cases where you may have, or the union may

Prev Next Index