Day 174 - 17 Oct 95 - Page 03

     1        strike and he came back to work.
     3   Q.   Did he not have a Rights Commissioner hearing?
     4        A.  Not that I can recall.
     6   Q.   You do not remember one?
     7        A.  No.
     9   Q.   Do you remember some controversy about Mr. Caulfield
    10        complaining that his job status had been reduced?
    11        A.  Not in particular, no.  His job, from what I can
    12        remember of it, was that he did maintenance work in the
    13        restaurant.
    15   Q.   What was his position when he came back?
    16        A.  I presume he was the same position.
    18   Q.   But you do not remember?
    19        A.  I do not remember, no.
    21   Q.   Do you have any documents concerning Anne Holmes'
    22        complaints to the Rights Commissioner?
    23        A.  No, not to my knowledge.  The only documents we have
    24        are the ones that we have produced to the solicitor.
    26   Q.   Why would you have thrown away the documents relating to a
    27        successful application to the Rights Commissioner by
    28        Miss Holmes, when you kept the ones relating to Mr. Macken?
    29        A.  I cannot say.
    31   Q.   I also wanted to ask you about -- I do not know whether you
    32        have pink volume XIII B there, please.  If you could turn
    33        to page -- it is in tab 59, page 1023.
    34        A.  Yes, I have it.
    36   Q.   This is the granting of an injunction, I think.  Well,
    37        I think the first one is an interim injunction.  In the
    38        second paragraph, the court refers to having read the
    39        affidavits of Cerine Brennan, Michael Burn, Peter Lawler,
    40        and then James Macken, Sean Mrozek, Noel Dowling and Thomas
    41        White "filed respectively this day".  Did you keep those
    42        affidavits?
    43        A.  I cannot -----
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Did you have them, yourself?
    46        A.  The affidavits of these people you mentioned?
    48   Q.   Yes.
    49        A.  I cannot recall.  My files would have consisted of
    50        whatever we had.  Whether I had seen them or not, at this 
    51        point in time I cannot recollect. 
    53   MS. STEEL:   It would have been normal practice, would it not,
    54        for you to have seen the affidavits to comment on them, if
    55        your solicitors wanted to rebut what they said in court, or
    56        anything like that?
    57        A.  Yes, I believe so.
    59   Q.   So they would have provided you with copies of them?
    60        A.  I presume they would have, yes.

Prev Next Index