Day 140 - 22 Jun 95 - Page 04
1 A. Correct, my Lord.
2
3 Q. But the disturbance had arisen out of something to do with
4 the union?
5 A. Yes, my Lord.
6
7 Q. I put it in those neutral terms. It seems to me -- tell me
8 if I am making the wrong assumption -- that you could see
9 ways in which that could be construed as being sacked over
10 union activity, because the disturbance had arisen against
11 that background? You were saying, "Well, you ought not to
12 have sacked them", and he was saying, "Well, they created a
13 disturbance, I am entitled to." Was that the general tenor
14 of the discussion?
15 A. Exactly, my Lord -- because I think his lawyer was
16 saying that there are rules against making a disturbance,
17 whatever the reason is, and that was why they were sacked.
18 But, as my Lord indicated, they were talking about having a
19 union vote.
20
21 MS. STEEL: So the disturbance was the crew workers talking
22 about having a union vote?
23 A. No. The disturbance was, one particular young man --
24 who, by the way, is a lawyer, a crew person who was a
25 lawyer, and I found that interesting -- was making a big
26 speech and running around creating a disturbance among the
27 customers and among the crew, and he was shouting in his
28 speech that they should have a vote, a union vote, a vote
29 among the crew.
30
31 Q. That is what you were told by the -----
32 A. Yes.
33
34 MR. MORRIS: And had been distributing leaflets, that leaflets
35 were being distributed?
36 A. I knew there was a disturbance. I believe there are
37 leaflets associated with it, but I am not entirely sure,
38 because we focused on the fact that he created problems, as
39 far as his activities with other people, both customers and
40 crew, and that is what he and I were discussing.
41
42 Q. So the manager, the joint venture partner, was creating
43 problems by not allowing union activity, was he?
44 A. No. I just felt there was a better way of handling all
45 of this, and that is -- in my opinion, he should not sack
46 anyone in that context at all, in my opinion. He may have
47 a legal right to do it in Spain; he had rules against
48 disturbances, but I do not think we need to have -- in the
49 US you may call it make a big federal case out of it. The
50 employees wanted a vote, and that is what they were looking
51 for; and he should reinstate these people and, forthwith,
52 go to having the vote. There is no need -- I use terms --
53 we sell hamburgers, we do not want extraneous problems, and
54 there was no need to make this into a problem. Let us just
55 proceed, reinstate them and have the vote and be done with
56 the problem.
57
58 Q. So the manager was making a problem by not allowing the
59 employees to have an union vote?
60 A. Are you testifying or am I testifying?
