Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 47
1 Lordship, that McDonald's accepted, and if this is the same
2 hearing Mr. Stein has told your Lordship and Mr. Morris
3 that they did not accept it, that they accepted that they
4 were guilty of any of those 15,500 violations.
5
6 My Lord, No. 5 is plainly I think supposed to be a
7 franchisee case. What we are not told, even if this is
8 true, is what happened next and that is something we would
9 have to find out if this amendment is allowed.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment please.
12
13 MR. RAMPTON: The next two, my Lord, also Fair Lawn and Trenton,
14 New Jersey, we are not told whether it is a company
15 restaurant or a franchisee. Sioux Falls, perhaps South
16 Dakota, though it is pleaded that the US Labour Department
17 fined McDonald's Corporation for child labour violations
18 involving 179 minors at eight local stores, what the
19 pleading does not say, which we now know, is that
20 McDonald's appealed against that decision. There are one
21 sees yet again the door opening to what one might call a
22 confession and avoidance as Mr. Stein presented to your
23 Lordship.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It actually says that, does it?
26
27 MR. RAMPTON: I think it says it on page 16, yes. Yes,
28 "McDonald's will appeal Federal fines", this is at the top
29 of the page, "for child labour law violations, a restaurant
30 spokesman says". That was in April 1993. I do not know
31 how quickly Sioux Falls or the South Dakota labour court
32 moves, whichever court it is, but it is quite possibly by
33 this time we have a result and it is quite possibly we have
34 not, in which case one can see the saving of all these
35 privileged documents, and one can see Sioux Falls or
36 whoever it is opening a mass of documents falling out apt
37 to show whether or not this was a true bill or if it was
38 what McDonald's did about it, if it was a case where
39 McDonald's Corporation was brought in.
40
41 My Lord, I will not refer to any of the next three
42 specifically, except, as I have said before, we will repeat
43 in the context of this case, so what?
44
45 I go to 11, if I may which, is pages 28 and 29 of the sheaf
46 and I see that it is alleged that McDonald's in North
47 Kensington, Rhode Island in or around March and June 1990
48 was found to be employing 14 and 15 year old workers during
49 improper hours in breach of the child labour laws. This
50 resulted in a fine from the US Department of Labour. When
51 one looks at Mr. Morris' computerised extract one finds
52 nothing of the kind. What one finds is on page 29 that
53 Mr. Shavez, the official concerned, said the latest
54 alleged -- I am sorry, it is at the top of the page,
55 Mr. Shavez said: "The new alleged violator in Rhode Island
56 was McDonald's of North Kingstown," etc. etc. Then at the
57 bottom of the page it says: "McDonald's has a right to
58 challenge the allegation, if not challenged then to pay the
59 fine." There again one can see the door opening to another
60 two or three days litigation on that incident in wherever
