Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 512 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 6 of 14
With respect to wages, the Companys proposal the Kirby Proposal is still on the table in current negotiations (Hemenway Trial Tr. 862:2-11), and Plaintiffs witness, Russell Payne, testified that he recalled that West MEC Chairman McIlvenna (and the East MEC chairman) considered the Kirby Proposal for pay to be woefully inadequate. (Tr. 644:15-19).
Plaintiffs dispute this fact on the grounds that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. # 508 ¶ 21). However, Plaintiffs did not make a hearsay objection, or any objection, when Mr. Payne was asked about his recollection of the woefully inadequate comment. Further, Plaintiffs objection now (that [t]his cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted that, in fact, the Kirby proposal was inadequate, Doc. # 508 ¶ 21) has no merit in any event because Defendant was not
trying to prove that the Kirby Proposal was in fact inadequate but rather that the West MEC chairman regarded the proposal as inadequate. Based on the fact that the East and West MECs were not prepared to accept the Kirby Proposal, Mr. Payne agreed that we cant sit here and prognosticate when it would have been TAd. (Tr. 644:23-25). And when asked, [t]herefore we cant prognosticate as to when a final contract altogether would have been TAd, correct? Mr. Payne responded, Not with any certainty, no. (Tr. 645:1-3).