Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 03

     1   Q.   How does that work?  Explain it, please?
     2        A.  Well, there are thousands of cases dealing with
     3        principles such as promissory estoppel and others where
     4        that right to change things is severely altered by the
     5        legal system and case law.
     7   Q.   Just pausing with promissory estoppel, we too have a
     8        doctrine of promissory estoppel.  It may or may not be the
     9        same as yours. Does it mean that if I say something, or
    10        represent something to somebody who acts in reliance on
    11        what I have said and then I break my promise, as it were,
    12        he has a right against me?
    13        A.  The principle that I understand, of course there are
    14        thousands of cases trying to interpret promissory estoppel
    15        in the US, but it is a reliance-type theory that I would
    16        say is the dominant view.
    18   Q.   So if a Manager, despite what is written here, has said
    19        something to a crew member upon which that crew member has
    20        acted in reliance of what was said to him, and then the
    21        promise is not carried out, the employee may have a right
    22        of action?
    23        A.  There is no question they have a right of action.
    24        There is no question that a jury would interpret the
    25        respective rights of the parties.
    27   Q.   Given what is stated in the Handbook, or the policies that
    28        are stated in the Handbook do not create contractual
    29        obligations between McDonald's and its employees, how does
    30        the court approach the question:  What are the contractual
    31        obligations between the Company and its employees?
    32        A.  I am not totally sure I understand what you are saying.
    34   Q.   If it was said there is a contract, where would the court
    35        look to find the terms of the contract?
    36        A.  Oh, in the Handbook.
    38   Q.   It would?
    39        A.  Absolutely.
    41   Q.   Despite what is written here?
    42        A.  That is right.  They would look at the Handbook and
    43        they would also look at parol evidence.
    45   Q.   Parol evidence?
    46        A.  Yes.
    48   Q.   Oral evidence, evidence of things said between?
    49        A.  Between the two, the employee and the employer
    50        representative. 
    52   Q.   Does the employee in America have a written contract? 
    53        A.  Does who have a written contract? I did not hear the
    54        first part?
    56   Q.   Does an employee in America have a written agreement with
    57        the Company?
    58        A.  I can talk about McDonald's.
    60   Q.   Yes?

Prev Next Index