Day 303 - 19 Nov 96 - Page 19
1 entitlement to be significant but here we have scores of
2 examples just in a few pages.
3
4 I did check the handbooks, the Crew Handbook. There is
5 none for 1990 that were disclosed. Maybe it was not
6 printed for 1990, but the 1989 handbook, basically - it is
7 the same in all the handbooks - it identifies what the
8 McDonald's break allowances are, and that was on page 24 of
9 the 1989 handbook or bundle page 133 in the relevant pink
10 volume with all the crew handbooks which gives the
11 statutory provisions. No, it gives what McDonald's
12 considers to be its practice, statutory or not, their
13 entitlement. Anyway, if it is in the Crew Handbook, then
14 it is part of your statutory entitlement because it is part
15 of your contract.
16
17 So if you do not get your 45 minutes, which is in your
18 contract, you are, as far as we can see, in breach of the
19 law -- well, not the person but the manager responsible,
20 the company is in breach of the law. They are in breach of
21 contract as well as statutory provision.
22
23 Just looking at a few more documents. I did not actually
24 mention the -- I did mention it but I did not quote the
25 deferred prohibition notice from Manchester City Council
26 regarding the electrocution of Mark Hopkins in 1992, where
27 it says the environmental health and consumer protection
28 department, Michael Sherkey, in the notice says: "I am of
29 the opinion that the following activity, namely the use of
30 portable electrical appliances in the wash-up area of the
31 above premises without the protection of a residual current
32 device installed thereto, will involve a risk of serious
33 personal injury. I am further of the opinion that the said
34 matters involve contraventions of the following statutory
35 provisions: that is Regulation 6 of the electricity at work
36 regulations 1989. The reasons for my opinion are: the use
37 of portable electrical appliances in the wash-up area of
38 the above premises will involve a risk of serious personal
39 injury by reason of the fact that in the course of work
40 activities carried on therein such equipment may be exposed
41 to mechanical damage and the effects of wet conditions.
42 Such exposure could result in the leakage of electrical
43 current from the equipment with the consequent risk of a
44 fire being started or persons being electrocuted by
45 indirect contact. I hereby direct that the said activities
46 should not be carried on by you under your control after
47 the 20th November 1992.
48
49 To me, that is a clear breach of the electricity at work
50 regulations and that McDonald's are therefore culpable for
51 what happened. And it is just a shame that the inquest was
52 not given the full details in McDonald's own investigation.
53
54 I wanted to mention this. It is hard to know what status
55 to give this document. This was H3. I do not know if it
56 was behind Lyn Mead or what.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is behind Lyn Mead.
59
60 MR. MORRIS: It was the McDonald's opinion survey of crew of
