Day 194 - 01 Dec 95 - Page 14
1 stores?" He said: "I do not know how we could stop that.
2 If we found out about it, yes." Then I asked him whether
3 it was gross misconduct to do that, and he said: "Yes, it
4 is. It is a summary sackable offence."
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think that is really comment to me.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: OK. (To the witness): One further question: did
9 you have any recognition from McDonald's while you were at
10 the store, in terms of you being a good worker or they
11 would be interested in you as management, or anything like
12 that?
13 A. Well, from time to time, there are sort of performance
14 review things where they mark your work on different --
15 whatever you are doing, cooking fries, cooking hamburgers,
16 cleaning the vat; and they add those up and have a session
17 with you and give you, like, five pence an hour pay rise;
18 so, that sort of recognition, yes. But, at first, the
19 manager of the store, whose first name I recall as William,
20 I do not recall his surname, he talked to me on two to
21 three occasions about would I like to be trained to become
22 a manager at the store, which I did not -- which was not
23 like the sort of inhouse promotions; it was some, sort of,
24 they send you away to be a trainee manager, or something
25 like that. But that only happened in the first couple of
26 months, and after that there was no more mention of that.
27
28 MR. MORRIS: OK. No further questions.
29
30
31 Cross-examined by Mr. Rampton
32
33 Q. I have only one question, Mr. Sutcliffe. The girl, lady,
34 woman, junior manager, who advised you, you say, that
35 McDonald's did not like trade unions, that was a Floor
36 Manager, was it not?
37 A. I am not certain. She certainly was not a -- yes,
38 I believe so, yes.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: Thank you.
41
42 MS. STEEL: Does that mean that Mr. Rampton agrees with
43 everything else Mr. Sutcliffe has said?
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, it does not. Once you get to a stage
46 where the evidence -- in so far as the evidence for the
47 other side is called before your own evidence, it has been
48 put in dispute in so far as it is contradicted by your own
49 evidence. So, it does not have to be formally challenged
50 by the advocate. It is then left to the judge to weigh up
51 what he makes of it, having heard -----
52
53 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What happens, what traditionally happens in
56 any litigation is that the witnesses of the party who goes
57 first in calling their witnesses are challenged, and the
58 case of the party who is going to call their witnesses next
59 should be put and all challenges should be made. One then
60 has that evidence. When the party who is going to call