Day 128 - 24 May 95 - Page 38


     
     1        A.  Well, it mentions 1st September, which is just a couple
     2        of months after I started in my role, and, certainly, there
     3        were not any systems in place then for following up on the
     4        accident investigation.  I suspect it would have been done
     5        locally.
     6
     7   Q.   The Company would not think it was important enough to
     8        investigate it from Head Office or regional office?
     9        A.  When I say "locally" I mean from the regional office.
    10        I am sure it was investigated, but using the format
    11        I explained before, where the security people would take
    12        statements, and it would still be the Personnel Department
    13        that got involved from the regional safety standpoint.
    14
    15   Q.   You are aware of the incident where McDonald's were fined
    16        œ2,250 with œ430 costs by Bury Magistrates' Court for
    17        having an unguarded rubbish compactor?
    18        A.  I am aware of it, yes.
    19
    20   Q.   Resulting in an employee suffering a trapped arm?
    21        A.  Yes.  Again I did not investigate that.  It was
    22        investigated along the lines we just discussed, but
    23        I did know of it and I believe it was because a compactor
    24        guard was missing.
    25
    26   Q.   That was in May 1991 that that came to court, I think.  So
    27        there was no report into the accident, which was circulated
    28        to all the stores, to make sure that none of them were
    29        using a similar rubbish compactor that had a missing guard
    30        as well?
    31        A.  I am sure something was circulated.  It certainly did
    32        not come from myself, but, having said that, as an ex-store
    33        manager myself, one of the things that you know to be
    34        something you have to follow up on is to make sure the
    35        compactor guards are kept in good condition, maintained
    36        properly, cleaned properly and replaced, if necessary.  It
    37        is not something new to us.  It was an integral part of
    38        what was a recognised system for safety.
    39
    40   Q.   The Company was also prosecuted for failing to report the
    41        accident within the specified period.  Is that something
    42        that you looked into at all?
    43        A.  As I think I said yesterday, I am sure even now there
    44        are some accidents that do not get reported that should.
    45        There are no excuses with something as serious as this; we
    46        should have known that we should have reported it
    47        straightaway.
    48
    49   Q.   Would that have been the fault of Head Office security
    50        department; they had taken statements and not bothered to 
    51        report the accident? 
    52        A.  I really do not know.  It could be all sorts of things. 
    53
    54   Q.   Or is it quite possible that the security department did
    55        not go and make an investigation into this?
    56        A.  I really do not know.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is possible, is it, that the information
    59        did not get out of the store ---
    60        A.  Yes, it is possible.

Prev Next Index