Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 48
1 would have otherwise done, I suppose, to use the word
2 Mr. Rampton used, towards sweetening them towards
3 McDonald's as opposed to the union.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: I did not mean bribe in its technical sense,
6 I meant inducement.
7 A. With my Lord's explanation ----
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Giving them extra special treatment?
10 A. Yes. That would be illegal under the National Labour
11 Relations Act and, no, that did not occur.
12
13 MR. RAMPTON: How closely does the NLRB scrutinise these
14 elections?
15 A. That is their principal role. They have a variety of
16 duties and responsibilities, but they -- I call it the
17 watchdogs of that process -- they scrutinise it very
18 closely. There are clear detailed processes and procedures
19 once a petition is filed for an election, and any
20 complaints that either side has are thoroughly
21 investigated, and remedial action, or criminal action, or
22 whatever might take place.
23
24 Q. That is a good example. If the union had alleged, and the
25 NLRB, after presumably a hearing and listening to evidence,
26 had concluded that the licensee, or indeed the Corporation,
27 had provided special inducements to the employees to vote
28 for the employer against the union in such an election,
29 what would the NLRB do about that?
30 A. They have two channels: One is if they think that an
31 election occurred where, say, an employer committed unfair
32 labour practices, which are the terms, they would either
33 order a second election or even absent an election, they
34 would order the employer to recognise the union without an
35 election, or even if the union had lost the election. That
36 is the penalty that they would impose.
37
38 Q. And that, as I think you told us yesterday, if there is any
39 problem about it, the NLRB can get the sanction of the
40 court?
41 A. They would petition the court for enforcement.
42
43 Q. Then you have got enforcement by contempt proceedings?
44 A. Exactly.
45
46 Q. It goes on does this pleading: "To divide the two main
47 activists". May I pause there, Mr. Stein. Were you
48 conscious whether or not there were any main activists and,
49 if so, how many there were?
50 A. I was aware that at the NLRB hearings there were two
51 employees that did participate on the union's behalf, so
52 I am aware that there were two that worked on the union's
53 behalf.
54
55 Q. The allegation is that in order to divide the two main
56 activists, one was offered promotion and the others's work
57 was criticised. Do you know anything about that?
58 A. It never happened.
59
60 Q. Then it says this: "These tactics against the union were
