Day 302 - 18 Nov 96 - Page 30
1 That was done by Gill Barns, who gave evidence, and she
2 absolved, effectively, Mr. Chapman of any responsibility in
3 the death, and basically she stood by the conclusions of
4 her report, her investigation, which I think showed
5 something like 15, or something, failures in safety
6 procedures.
7
8 Now, you know, it is not that I want to focus only on this
9 one situation and then say that damns the whole company,
10 but the point is, it is the tip of an iceberg, a
11 particularly extreme result from what is a general problem,
12 which is identified in that report. That up to that time
13 at least, 1992, or 1993 when the report was completed,
14 safety is not seen as being important at store level. And
15 Gill Barns' evidence was, effectively, yes, that is all
16 true up to the point that I took over and then we started
17 sorting it all out. But certainly, whether it has been
18 sorted out or not is irrelevant because at the relevant
19 times in this case we have serious problems. McDonald's
20 have serious problems.
21
22 In fact, the Manchester Council issued a prohibition order
23 forcing McDonald's to instal residual electrical devices on
24 all wash-up areas, because without such devices there was
25 "a risk of serious personal injury", and that was an
26 offence against the - I can't remember if it was byelaws or
27 the Health and Safety Act anyway. So the effect of the
28 prohibition order issued by Manchester Health Department
29 was that McDonald's were in breach of the law such as to
30 give rise to a risk of serious personal injury. Hence,
31 they were responsible for that death and there were no
32 residual current devices as far as we have heard in court
33 nationally and, therefore, there was a risk of serious
34 personal injury in every McDonald's store in the country up
35 to the time they were installed, which, taken together with
36 the memo saying that several recent incidents of severe
37 shocks from faulty items of equipment, and with the safety
38 not being seen as important at store level recognition,
39 then I think we have a bit of a picture of the safety
40 conditions, certainly with the electrical equipment taken
41 into consideration.
42
43 On top of that, around the same time, a confidential Health
44 and Safety Executive report in 1992 was -- the accident
45 prevention unit was set up and made 23 recommendations for
46 improvements, and one of its conclusions was "the
47 application of McDonald's hustle policy in many restaurants
48 was in effect putting the service of the customer before
49 the service of employees".
50
51 Now, the thing about hustle as opposed to other aspects of
52 safety is that, first of all, it is worldwide as a
53 culture. Secondly, it is something that could affect every
54 operation that is being done in a restaurant. It is not
55 just about -- well, it is a fundamental unsafe policy. And
56 do not forget we are talking about a positive policy to use
57 hustle, not just the lack of, you know, education or
58 something, of staff in safety techniques, we are talking
59 about positive incitement to be unsafe.
60
