Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 49


     
     1        criticised by the Labour Board." Were they?
     2        A.  No, they were not. If they did not happen, how were
     3        they criticised?
     4
     5   Q.   Were these allegations made in the course of this appear,
     6        do you remember?
     7        A.  There were a variety of allegations made by the union.
     8        As I think I mentioned earlier, that is typical.  There
     9        were no allegations that I recall specifically on these two
    10        individuals.  There may have been, it is possible, so I do
    11        not want to say conclusively not.  What I can say
    12        conclusively was that there was never any remedy or
    13        requirement with regard to these two individuals imposed on
    14        the franchisee.
    15
    16   Q.   I think you told us yesterday, Mr. Stein, that, so far as
    17        you were aware, there had never been a finding against the
    18        Corporation?
    19        A.  That is correct.
    20
    21   Q.   Of an unfair labour practice?
    22        A.  That is correct, and in this situation nothing against
    23        the franchisee.
    24
    25   Q.   What, in fact, was the substance or nature of the hearing,
    26        or whatever it was, the proceeding before the NLRB?
    27        A.  The principal proceeding before the NLRB had to do with
    28        what is called the multi-story unit, what is the
    29        appropriate unit to hold this election in.
    30
    31   Q.   What was the dispute about that in this case?
    32        A.  The union was seeking to represent only the employees
    33        at the Warbash Avenue store.  The owner/operator operated
    34        an additional 7 stores, there were a total of 8 stores, and
    35        the question that the NLRB had to decide was whether or not
    36        there was a community of interest among all of the
    37        employees because of common working conditions, transfer
    38        between the restaurant -- that happens frequently -- and
    39        that it would be improper for them to hold an election in
    40        one store, or was it proper for them to hold an election in
    41        one store versus dictate that the election needed to take
    42        place in all 8 restaurants.
    43
    44   Q.   What was the decision of the NLRB in this particular case?
    45        A.  A written decision by the NLRB finding that the only
    46        appropriate unit would be an 8 store unit.
    47
    48   Q.   Was there then an election in the 8 stores or not?
    49        A.  No, there was not.
    50 
    51   Q.   Did the union try to get its 30 per cent share of interest 
    52        in those 8 stores or not? 
    53        A.  Yes.  I do not know if we have mentioned the 30 per
    54        cent required up until now.
    55
    56   Q.   I thought you did?
    57        A.  Maybe we did, but I do not recall.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, you did.
    60

Prev Next Index