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
