Day 174 - 17 Oct 95 - Page 23
1
2 Q. But I asked you when the National Understanding, what the
3 date of it was, and then I asked you the second question
4 because the National Understanding might have been reached
5 on one date but said it had to be implemented by a later
6 date. Do you understand?
7 A. Yes. Sorry. That is quite correct. Sorry.
8
9 Q. Can you remember either date now?
10 A. I cannot, except it was within that year.
11
12 Q. I just want to ask one matter while it is on my mind, as it
13 has been for some time, and then Mr. Morris or Ms. Steel
14 can pursue it after we have had our break. But I have got
15 correspondence and I have had evidence from you as to what
16 was going on between you and your Company and the union in
17 the summer of 1979, and I have the Labour Court's
18 recommendations. Did you have any contact with the union
19 after 1979? Did they get in touch with you about wages in
20 Dublin McDonald's or anything else on behalf of any member,
21 thereafter, that you recall?
22 A. No, not that I recall. The correspondence that
23 happened in November 1979 was the last.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: Why would they not contact you later on?
26 A. I honestly do not know, Mr. Morris.
27
28 Q. Have you got page 1062?
29 A. Sorry, what page? 1062?
30
31 Q. Yes.
32 A. Yes.
33
34 Q. Have you got it, 1062? This is a letter which you sent to
35 the Labour Court, 24th March 1980. You had received a
36 letter from them on 21st March. You say: "We are at a loss
37 as to why the ITGWU are referring any dispute to you as
38 they have not indicated to us they have a dispute with this
39 Company." Well, they had, had they not, previously, before
40 Christmas? But we have already looked at that
41 correspondence.
42 A. Yes.
43
44 Q. "I have pleasure in enclosing herewith a copy of a letter
45 which we have sent to the ITGWU confirming that the
46 National Understanding second phase had been implemented
47 for our entire hourly paid staff members since
48 1st March 1980. Can you please confirm to me the details
49 of the dispute that the ITGWU have with our Company."
50
51 You do not include the letter which you sent to the ITGWU.
52 Do you still have that letter?
53 A. No.
54
55 Q. But you were still in contact with them?
56 A. It would appear that -- OK, this letter addressed to
57 Mr. Pompert (?) was in response, as it says, here to a
58 letter received from him.
59
60 Q. Right. So was it the situation, then, tht the union
