Day 120 - 03 May 95 - Page 15
1 A. No, I do not accept that at all. They have their
2 representation. They have their rap sessions. Their
3 management consider what they are talking about, then they
4 have their crew meetings.
5
6 Q. You said, for example, everybody is disgruntled about their
7 pay, and I would have thought -----
8 A. No, I did not say everyone was disgruntled about their
9 pay. I said everyone would like to receive more; everybody
10 thinks they should earn more.
11
12 Q. Let us assume that everyone would like to receive more.
13 People that are on the minimum wage, presumably, that would
14 particularly apply, would it not?
15 A. What would particularly apply?
16
17 Q. That they believe they could do with more money?
18 A. I do not think so. You must remember the Wages Council
19 was made up of an equal number of employee representatives,
20 inevitably trade unionists, and employer representatives
21 with an independent chairman, and they set the minimum
22 wage.
23
24 Q. That may or may not be true, but the point is if people are
25 on the minimum wage allowed in this country, i.e. it would
26 be illegal to pay less if they are at or near that wage,
27 i.e. the lowest paid hourly workers in the whole country,
28 effectively, if they are at or near the minimum wage, they
29 are, in fact, by definition, at the lowest level allowable
30 in the country, then they are going to be particularly
31 concerned to increase their wages, are they not?
32 A. Everybody wishes to increase their wages. I do not
33 know that they are at the minimum wage in the country.
34 They are at the minimum wage for our industry in the
35 country, in the provenances, for their first 21 days, after
36 which they can get a pay review.
37
38 Q. Maybe.
39 A. They will get a pay review.
40
41 Q. They may not get a wage rise?
42 A. They may not; it depends upon their ability.
43
44 Q. If we go on to Liverpool -----
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: Are we leaving East Ham? Because, if so, there is
47 something I would like clarified in due course. I noticed
48 the pleadings suggest that the event took place in January
49 1986, and suggests that Mr. Peter Sutcliffe was present at
50 the time. Looking at Mr. Peter Sutcliffe's statement,
51 which is tab 8 of volume II of the Defendants' statements,
52 it appears he was not there then. He started in December
53 1986. His statement mentions nothing of this particular
54 incident. If the pleading is in error, in fact, it ought
55 to be made clear that Mr. Sutcliffe is not going to give
56 evidence about that incident in January, as it appears from
57 his statement that he cannot do.
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think all you need to do at the moment is,
60 we can sort out any pleading matters later, but while
