Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 09


     
     1
     2        The matters as pleaded about the employment of young people
     3        in the UK where there were infringements of labour laws,
     4        employment laws, have been taken seriously by the court.
     5        These should be taken seriously in the USA, no less so.  In
     6        fact, the pleadings that we made on similar allegations in
     7        the UK were admitted by the Plaintiffs.
     8
     9        The first one Mr. Rampton categorised as just two people
    10        having an argument.  I think the National Labour Relations
    11        Board specifically criticising the McDonald's Corporation
    12        is not two people having an argument.  It is the First
    13        Plaintiff being criticised by the statutory authority in
    14        the USA dealing with labour matters.
    15
    16        If it helps the court -- it might not -- I did contact the
    17        solicitors involved with that case last night to try to see
    18        if I could get further independent details, but the law
    19        firm who is dealing with it is no longer operating.
    20        I contacted the Bar Council in wherever it was, Los
    21        Angeles, and the solicitor is no longer practising.  So, in
    22        terms of getting independent evidence on that, I have
    23        reached a blank.
    24
    25        That was the second one.  Mr. Rampton said that the word
    26        "sacked", there was nothing to base a belief upon that.
    27        I was going to interject but I was asked to do it in the
    28        resubmission.  I do not really have to go through it
    29        because I think that any reasonable fair minded person
    30        reading the report that, for example, on the bottom of page
    31        45:  "The suit alleges that McDonald's termination of
    32        Ghanim", that is the woman, "violates the labour code of
    33        the State of California", etc., it clearly refers to her
    34        being terminated which is the same as being sacked.
    35
    36        There are other references to termination as well.  I do
    37        not see how someone could take a law suit for a termination
    38        unless they had been terminated.
    39
    40        Point (3), I do not think there is anything specifically
    41        I noted about that one to come back on.  I think certainly
    42        the meaning on the bottom of page 46 of the executives of
    43        McDonald's, Burger King, Dominoes and Little Cesar saying
    44        they have never terminated a franchised contract over child
    45        labour law violations, even though there have been
    46        violations, must mean that the McDonald's Corporation was
    47        recognising there had been violations.  I noted that next
    48        to point (4), but it does not only relate to point (4).
    49        Mr. Rampton made some comment about that.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Your point there, I would have thought, your 
    52        stronger point is rather different.  I do not mind saying 
    53        that I am minded to agree with Mr. Rampton, that if you
    54        have a very large concern with a very large number of
    55        outlets for whatever reason, you are going to get breaches
    56        of the law from time to time.  If you employ young people,
    57        you are going to get breaches of the law in relation to
    58        them.  Query, at the end of the case whether whatever
    59        breaches of the law are shown support your case rather than
    60        just amount to what one would expect even in the best run

Prev Next Index