Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 75
1
2 I invited Bruce Church representatives to meet me in my
3 office in Oak Brook to discuss the situation. To make a
4 long story short, I did discover that there had been a
5 long-standing dispute between the two, between Cesar Chavez
6 and Bruce Church. I advised Bruce Church that I felt this
7 was a matter that should go before the National Labour
8 Relations Board because I felt that there was a good chance
9 the NLRB would enjoin Cesar Chavez from picketing and
10 leafleting our stores, because we were clearly, in my
11 opinion, secondary and part of an illegal boycott
12 situation. Bruce Church refused to file charges.
13
14 Q. Why if they had a good case?
15 A. Simply because -- they were very blunt about it -- they
16 said that they wanted McDonald's in the middle of this
17 thing because of McDonald's good name, that it would give
18 credibility o Bruce Church and their effort against Cesar
19 Chavez. I told him that he did not understand what his
20 responsibilities were, that we are the customers and that
21 he should do everything he can to keep his disputes from
22 spilling over to our restaurants. He refused to do that.
23 I met with our purchasing people and it was decided that we
24 would cease doing business with Bruce Church.
25
26 Q. And did you?
27 A. Yes, we did.
28
29 Q. Forgive me for this question because on the account you
30 have given it is meaningless, but was there any element of
31 anti-union thinking in your treatment of Bruce Church?
32 A. No, none whatsoever.
33
34 Q. Could McDonald's themselves have taken a case before the
35 NLRB on this threat of picketing?
36 A. Yes, we can under the Act, anyone can file a charge.
37
38 Q. Why did not you do so in this particular case?
39 A. Because we felt that the primary person who had the
40 problem in the dispute was Bruce Church, that we would
41 certainly make ourselves available to the NLRB during their
42 investigation, but that Bruce Church, if they are properly
43 conducting themselves with their customers, should bring
44 this action.
45
46 Q. They declined to do so?
47 A. Yes.
48
49 Q. So far as you were concerned, that was the end of it?
50 A. Yes, and it was very obvious that a supplier of ours
51 was using us rather than supporting and doing what he
52 should be doing.
53
54 Q. Finally something which is not in your statement,
55 Mr. Stein, but is in the pleading at, my Lord, passage 6 on
56 page 26. What is said is this, Mr. Stein. Now we come
57 some full circle all the way back to Pennsylvania. "In the
58 winter of 88/89 Pennsylvanian authorities cited McDonald's
59 franchisee, MaCale Management, for 466 violations of child
60 labour laws at its eight stores in the Philadelphia and
