Day 118 - 01 May 95 - Page 25
1 would go to our friends at Barlows and we would fight it.
2 If however it was not a matter of great principle or a
3 matter of anything that we terribly concerned about, in a
4 commercial interest way I would settle it for what we
5 called a nuisance value or I would authorise it being
6 settled for a nuisance value, and as far as I know they do
7 that today.
8
9 Q. That is general company line?
10 A. It is everyone line as far as I know. It is the
11 attitude most employers takes.
12
13 Q. So when Kirsty Pearson was challenging in her industrial
14 tribunal the fundamental principle of the company illegally
15 not paying overtime to tens of thousands of its employees,
16 effectively, you settled out of court. Why did you do that
17 then?
18 A. When was Kirsty Pearson?
19
20 Q. 1992?
21 A. I have no idea.
22
23 Q. We can show you the documents?
24 A. No, I did not settle it.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He says he has no idea because he was not in
27 the driving seat then.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: No, what I am saying is we have the documents?
30 A. I cannot tell you why -- if they settled it I do not
31 know.
32
33 Q. You said the company policy whether -----
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to say that I read that as something
36 which was happening in her case. I do not read it as a
37 challenge to the system as a whole.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: Well if the industrial tribunal would have ruled
40 for example that the company was illegally not paying her
41 overtime.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, it would not necessarily do that at all.
44 They might rule that she should have received X rather than
45 Y, but ----
46
47 MS. STEEL: Sorry her specific application was -----
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I have read it.
50
51 MS. STEEL: That was the thing that she wanted decided as
52 opposed to just her own wages.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Have you got the ruling there?
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord.
57
58 MS. STEEL: No, it was settled.
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: Is quite a short ruling, my Lord. I do not know
