Day 151 - 10 Jul 95 - Page 29


     
     1
     2   Q.   It was a blatant disregard of the Company policy, was it
     3        not?
     4        A.  Absolutely not.
     5
     6   Q.   Not?
     7        A.  A blatant disregard for the Company policy?
     8
     9   Q.   Yes -- crew working, on a regular basis, more than 39 hours
    10        a week?
    11        A.  One person, whose circumstances I cannot directly
    12        remember.  I remember Siamak was a training squad, but the
    13        circumstances which caused him to work more than the 39
    14        I cannot remember.  But to suggest that it is symptomatic
    15        of me having a blatant disregard for any policy -----
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The question was that him working those hours
    18        would be a blatant disregard, whoever was responsible for
    19        that.
    20        A.  Absolutely not.
    21
    22   MISS STEEL:  So it would not be a problem?
    23        A.  It would be a problem; and if I could remember that
    24        I dealt with it, I would love to say that I could.
    25        I cannot remember if that was something that caught my
    26        eye.  If you are asking me whether or not I was diligent
    27        enough to check those records, I can reply, yes, I was
    28        wholeheartedly 100 per cent diligent in checking those
    29        records.
    30
    31   Q.   You did not just check Mr. Alimi's payslips, presumably, or
    32        records?
    33        A.  I did not check anybody's payslips.
    34
    35   Q.   You did not just check Mr. Alimi's records?
    36        A.  I checked -- I think the system I used in terms of the
    37        payroll was to probably check it once a month; so one out
    38        of two, one out of three payrolls.
    39
    40   Q.   So if you cannot remember this happening with Mr. Alimi, it
    41        could well be, could it not, that it was happening with
    42        other crew?
    43        A.  Equally, I suppose you could say that in subsequent
    44        weeks, 28th June, 23rd August, when his hours go down,
    45        I may well have acted upon it.  It is pure supposition.
    46        I cannot remember.  But if you want to take the logical
    47        argument that I had a disregard for it, then maybe I can
    48        say that I had -- maybe I did have a regard for it, and
    49        these subsequent lower hours are an indication of my
    50        subsequent actions or discussions with the store manager. 
    51 
    52   Q.   But you would accept that if you cannot remember this at 
    53        the time, you cannot remember this incident of Mr. Alimi
    54        regularly working more than 39 hours, it may well be that
    55        there were other crew doing exactly the same who you also
    56        cannot remember about?
    57        A.  I would say that in terms of my checking of the records
    58        that there had been a widespread inherent problem at the
    59        Colchester restaurants with people regularly working over
    60        the hours, then I would have dealt with it; and if one

Prev Next Index