Day 085 - 08 Feb 95 - Page 33


     
     1        cent, so it has not attracted attention, are you saying
     2        there would not be any enquiry, nor need for any enquiry,
     3        to see how the wastage has been caused, but if you go above
     4        the two-and-a-half per cent or significantly above that
     5         -----
     6        A.  I think it is best to look at an individual store.  So,
     7        if on average its waste was one-and-a-half per cent when
     8        you have got the figures coming in and one week it was
     9        two-and-a-half, then that would, as am Operations Manager,
    10        you would call the restaurant and ask the reason why.  They
    11        may say:  "Well, we had a theft and that came within that,
    12        and that is how it was accounted for there", or "We had a
    13        case of meat that we had to throw away for some other
    14        reason".
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Shall we break off there?
    17
    18   MS. STEEL:  Could I just ask the one -- you do not actually
    19        routinely record the reasons why the product was wasted?
    20        A.  Well, extraordinary incidences, yes.  If there is a
    21        high amount, we would do.  But we would not say:  "These
    22        buns were dropped on the floor" as opposed to "Someone
    23        stepped on them" or  "When they arrived they were crushed,
    24        so we did not use them".  There would just be a figure of
    25        20 or 30 at the end of the day for that.  If there was a
    26        case meat that had to be thrown away, then there would be a
    27        record made of that.
    28
    29   Q.   Because that is more expensive?
    30        A.  Because it would impact -- yes, it is more expensive --
    31        it would impact on the figures.  It is out of the ordinary.
    32
    33   Q.   So you would say that did not arrive properly frozen or
    34        whether it had been dropped on the floor?
    35        A.  Yes, we would put a reason why it had been thrown away.
    36
    37                       (Luncheon Adjournment)
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  Do you still have the statement there?
    40        A.  Yes, I am on page 50 at the moment.
    41
    42   Q.   If you could turn to page 51, please.  You have adopted
    43        this statement and said you wanted it taken as your
    44        evidence, the statement in paragraph 2 under "Equipment":
    45        "In all McDonald's restaurants anywhere in the United
    46        Kingdom the equipment in use in the kitchen is identical";
    47        is that correct?
    48        A.  It is correct in that the type of -- I think
    49        "identical" if it is "exactly the same" would not be
    50        correct, but it is correct in that we have a fryer, a 
    51        grill, you know, tills -- all those things are identical 
    52        but later models do come out.  So, it is identical in the 
    53        type of equipment but perhaps a model is changed.
    54
    55   Q.   There has been quite a big difference in the way that the
    56        hamburgers are cooked, the type of equipment used for
    57        cooking hamburgers, has there not?
    58        A.  It has evolved.  We used to use flat grills and then we
    59        changed to using something that is called clamshell
    60        grills.  That is identical in all restaurants now, we have

Prev Next Index