Day 151 - 10 Jul 95 - Page 31
1
2 Q. Does that concern you?
3 A. It concerns me in terms of it would appear that his
4 hours are going up and down. I mean, the intervening ones
5 you have not mentioned suggest -- I have one here, I think,
6 dated the 10th of the 1st; for some reason, there is only
7 27 hours on that payslip. It would concern me in case
8 there was a reason why Siamak, sort of every fortnight or
9 so, was working more hours and in the intervening pay
10 periods was not.
11
12 Q. Would it actually concern you that on at least four
13 occasions -- very probably more than that -- Mr. Alimi was
14 working more than 39 hours in a week?
15 A. Well, it would concern me in so much as I suppose there
16 are four pay periods out of a possible, what, 14 or 15,
17 that he may have been working more hours. So that again
18 would suggest that, rather than a regular scheduling or a
19 store that was regularly scheduling its crew to do those
20 hours, as an indication there must have been some reason
21 specific to Mr. Alimi about why his hours were going up and
22 down, because of the intervening ones. So I presume,
23 I could naturally assume those in between that are not
24 being presented were good. So I would suggest there to the
25 store manager, I was the supervisor, just to find out if
26 those four out of 14 or 15 pay periods why specifically
27 Siamak was working those hours; again, was there something
28 wrong; were we looking at people who were not available?
29 But to suggest that four out of 15 suggests a major problem
30 with scheduling, one out of 55 people, again, only what I
31 have in front of me would suggest there is not a problem
32 endemic with the scheduling, more of something specific to
33 Siamak.
34
35 Q. For all we know, Mr. Stanton, it could be that if we had
36 the payslips of the other 55 people, they would all be
37 working over 39 hours a week.
38 A. For all I know, they could show they are not.
39
40 Q. The point is that you said in your evidence that it does
41 not happen that people work over 39 hours a week, that it
42 is against Company policy; they would not be scheduled to
43 work more than 39 hours a week, and you would check that
44 they were not working more than 39 hours a week; and, in
45 fact, it was happening, was it not?
46 A. They were not being scheduled for more than 39 hours,
47 and I did check, that I know, as my job and
48 responsibilities would entail. The fact that I cannot
49 remember this specific one does not, to me, suggest a
50 complete failing of a policy or a system -- one out of 55.
51
52 Q. When you were checking the records, did you just check one
53 out of 55 and then say: "Well, I can assume all the others
54 are" -----
55 A. Not at all, but I -----
56
57 Q. If you found one -----
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let him finish.
60
