Day 188 - 15 Nov 95 - Page 20
1 the PR woman said might be admissible. But I would hear
2 any argument in relation to that.
3
4 At the moment, when we come to that, I will draw the line
5 where I have drawn it so far when we had this similar
6 argument. As far as I am concerned, anyone up to and
7 including swing managers could not be treated as a
8 representative of McDonald's -- the heart and mind of
9 McDonald's, as it were -- but I am prepared, subject to any
10 argument from Mr. Rampton, to say that anyone from salaried
11 managers (which would include assistant managers up) could
12 be; they could be treated, as it were, as the Company
13 speaking.
14
15 MR. MORRIS: We would argue that floor managers would be in that
16 category, because they have the same responsibilities,
17 (although in a more limited area) of salaried management;
18 and many of them, indeed, carry out salaried managers'
19 functions, which is just convenient for McDonald's to have
20 them as floor managers, rather than salaried.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What you have to grapple with is this. I am
23 not suggesting any sinister motive against you; I do not
24 know whether you have one or not. But let me speak quite
25 openly. I do not really want to hear anything which
26 I cannot take into account when I come to sit down and
27 decide what goes into my judgment. If you have it in mind,
28 "Oh well, we would like it all to come out in open court",
29 that is a total irrelevance as far as I am concerned.
30
31 From my point of view, there is absolutely no point in
32 anything coming out in open court which I cannot
33 legitimately take into account in due course when I come to
34 think about what conclusions I might draw from the
35 evidence.
36
37 What I will do is, I will take the five minute break. Did
38 you put brackets round -----
39
40 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: When I come back, I will hear anything you
43 have to say, and then I will give a short ruling on what
44 can be read from the statement and referred to and what
45 cannot.
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: Before that happens, I would want to say something
48 about the broad proposition which your Lordship advanced,
49 which is -- I would respectfully say -- entirely
50 unexceptionable, namely, that hearsay from somebody from
51 first assistant upwards could be evidence against
52 McDonald's, and it could only be by way of admission; but
53 of course it would depend on what the statement was,
54 because not everything that an employee says, whatever
55 position he holds in the Company, is capable of being
56 characterised as an exception to the hearsay rule.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. The borderline between admissibility and
59 weight to be attached may become rather blurred.
60
