Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 70


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  What page are we on?
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  1378.  The first numbered paragraph says:
     4        "Plaintiffs are employees of Tyson Foods which is a chicken
     5        processing plant in Nashville Arkansas where Tyson is
     6        engaged almost exclusively in the production of Chicken
     7        McNuggets under contract upon McDonald's restaurants in
     8        Arkansas and other locations west of the Mississippi
     9        River."   Who funded this application by these employee
    10        Plaintiffs of Tysons?
    11        A.  I can only assume it was the employees.  We did not
    12        fund it.
    13
    14   Q.   You did not?
    15        A.  No, and the Tyson people did not fund it.
    16
    17   Q.   They did not either?
    18        A.  No.  This was an act apart from either McDonald's or
    19        Tysons.
    20
    21   Q.   I see that the action is headed "Roy Simpkins et al". Was
    22        it a representative action or was it just a large number of
    23        Plaintiffs on the same writ?
    24        A.  I believe it was a number of employees that worked at
    25        the plant.
    26
    27   Q.   "The Court find that the leaflets -- exhibits D, F and H,
    28        my Lord, can be found later on if anybody cares to look
    29        behind the judgment -- "which were circulated by Defendants
    30        or caused to be circulated by Defendants" -- that is the
    31        union -- "which circulation commenced on 7th March 1983 to
    32        customers during the noon hour of McDonald's restaurants in
    33        Arkansas and other locations urging McDonald's customers or
    34        prospective customers not to purchase Chicken McNuggets
    35        because of certain alleged unsanitary conditions existing
    36        at Tyson that the purported unsanitary conditions are
    37        false, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent, that the
    38        purpose of the circulation of the leaflets by the
    39        Defendants was to pressure Tyson to enter into a collective
    40        bargaining agreement with Defendant local union 425."
    41        Mr. Stein, did you attend this court hearing?
    42        A.  Yes, I was sitting in the audience.
    43
    44   Q.   Was it defended by the union?
    45        A.  Yes, it was.
    46
    47   Q.   Did the union give evidence?
    48        A.  Let me tell you what happened and determine if it was.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It says in the first paragraph that ---- 
    51 
    52   MR. RAMPTON:  I did not read that, I am sorry. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That there was a complaint, documents were
    55        obviously put in, there was evidence but the Defendants had
    56        not filed what is called a responsive pleading.  The only
    57        thing I have been looking through -- I understand that it
    58        was an application for interlocutory relief, and it looks
    59        as if the basis of such relief, the approach is somewhat
    60        the same as this country.

Prev Next Index