Day 143 - 27 Jun 95 - Page 63
1 upon their schedule, and it generally takes them a period
2 of several months to be able to put in enough time -- but
3 that number of hours, that is crazy.
4
5 Q. So why was he in training for so long?
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The trouble is, Mr. Stein, has not accepted
8 that he was in training for so long.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: Do you accept that he worked 2,700 hours?
11 A. No.
12
13 Q. You do not? You said you do not accept that? So how many
14 hours did he work?
15 A. I do not know but that number of hours seems silly to
16 me, ridiculous to me.
17
18 Q. So when you were advising during this case, presumably, you
19 took into consideration whether the actual applicant,
20 Mr. Miller, had suffered any injustice, yes?
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. Why do you say that? What has that to
23 do with whether he in law is an employee who is entitled to
24 remuneration? Why do you say that?
25
26 MR. MORRIS: If Mr. Stein is, as he claims, responsible for
27 personnel practices in the USA, then that must cover
28 whether any franchisees in training would suffer any
29 injustice while doing that.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not understand that, I am afraid. Lord
32 Diplock said on appeal to the House of Lords many years ago
33 that they were considering what the law is on a case, not
34 what the justice was.
35
36 MR. MORRIS: Maybe -----
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That, no doubt, was said in particular terms
39 of that case but, as I understand it, Mr. Stein is saying
40 (and test it further, if you will) that he was asked to, or
41 his department was asked to, produce an opinion on whether
42 Mr. Miller was legally entitled, or might be legally
43 entitled, to remuneration. That is not the same thing as
44 whether it would be fair to pay him.
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Am I wrong about that?
49
50 THE WITNESS: No, my Lord, you are absolutely correct.
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, may I intervene to observe what has,
53 apparently, escaped Mr. Morris which is that on
54 14th September 1994, the United States District Court for
55 the district of New Jersey entered summary judgment in
56 favour of McDonald's upon the very argument whether or not
57 Mr. Jeffery Miller was an employee of the Corporation, and
58 they decided he was not.
59
60 MR. MORRIS: What I am asking you, Mr. Stein, is did anybody
