Day 143 - 27 Jun 95 - Page 64


     
     1        enquire into whether this person had suffered any injustice
     2        or discrimination in any way?
     3        A.  I can tell you that neither I nor my people did that.
     4        This was not an employment relationship.  I only get
     5        involved in employment relationships.
     6
     7   Q.   Who would have investigated on behalf of McDonald's whether
     8        Mr. Miller suffered any injustice or discrimination?
     9        A.  This area would be handled by our Franchising
    10        Department or our Legal Department.  I have tried to make
    11        it clear to you, sir, that my area is in the employment
    12        area with regard to employees.  This man was clearly not an
    13        employee.  That is out of my jurisdiction.  I do not get
    14        involved with non-employees.
    15
    16   Q.   He was a trainee -- all right, we will leave that.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me make sure I have it right?
    19        A.  Yes, my Lord.
    20
    21   Q.   The anecdote I delivered was because the judge in that case
    22        was considering a pure point of law.  The House of Lords
    23        were not reconsidering the facts and they were not saying:
    24        "What would we do if we were just asked to do what was
    25        fair?"  They were considering what some point of law was
    26        and I cannot remember anything more about it.  As
    27        I understand it, what you are saying (and I will have to
    28        consider what further evidence there is, if any, on this),
    29        what you were asked was to say what the legal ramifications
    30        were?
    31        A.  Yes, my Lord.
    32
    33   Q.   If you were just charged with saying what was fair for
    34        Mr. Miller, were you asked to offer an opinion on that?
    35        A.  No, my Lord.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest you ask is this, Mr. Morris,
    38        and then if you get no reward, I suggest you leave it.
    39        I can see that it might be argued that if a franchisee
    40        stays doing work which is useful to the Company for a very
    41        large number of hours which might be thought to go beyond
    42        that which is necessary to train him if he is going to be
    43        successful at all, do you understand ---
    44        A.  Yes.
    45
    46   Q.   -- in his application or plan to be franchisee ---
    47        A.  Yes.
    48
    49   Q.   -- then the reality of the relationship has changed, he can
    50        no longer really be treated as someone who is merely 
    51        preparing him to be a franchisee, but the Corporation is, 
    52        in fact, using him as unemployed labour; do you see what 
    53        I mean?
    54        A.  I understand the issue.
    55
    56   Q.   I can see that someone might well mount an argument, but
    57        did that come into your considerations or not?
    58        A.  We are now digging into the legal considerations, whose
    59        benefit was the work for?  Was it for the benefit of the
    60        person becoming the operator or was it for the benefit or

Prev Next Index