Day 142 - 26 Jun 95 - Page 44


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not think it is strictly necessary I should
     2        clarify anything at all.
     3
     4   MR. MORRIS:  It is relevant.  If it is something that is written
     5        for the purpose of this case, it is important that the
     6        court knows that.  Can the Plaintiffs clarify that?  They
     7        disclosed it.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not know whether it is important or not
    10        whether it is written for the -- I do not know whether you
    11        challenge it or not, first of all.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  Not particularly, no.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I mean, if there is no issue about it, it
    16        does not matter what it was written for.  It is common
    17        ground.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  OK, Mr. Stein.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Tell me what you are getting at here?
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS (To the witness):  The case is, is it not, Mr. Stein,
    24        that up till 1986/87 McDonald's was hostile to trades
    25        unions in Germany and following a period of pressure,
    26        including media publicity, concluded an agreement soon
    27        afterwards?
    28        A.  I disagree with that.  I know that we, the German
    29        Company, approached the union to form -- in the mid 80s
    30        approached the union to form an association of the quick
    31        service restaurant group, Burger King, and others in order
    32        to reach an agreement to avoid any issues in the future as
    33        much as possible, but McDonald's was the catalyst to form
    34        this organisation, made a suggestion to the union that the
    35        best way of dealing with difficulties that had occurred in
    36        the past was to have an association, have an agreement,
    37        that fit what the employees, the union, the Company would
    38        want and to move ahead.  That part I am aware of.
    39
    40        Since 86 my understanding has been that there have been
    41        successive labour agreements.  The word "normal relations"
    42         -- I am searching for a better word, I do not have it --
    43        but the normal relations you would have with the union have
    44        occurred.  There have not been any -- I do not understand
    45        where we are going with this, frankly, because there have
    46        not been any labour disputes that I am aware of since the
    47        86 or so.
    48
    49   Q.   The relationship between McDonald's and the unions was not
    50        normal before 1986 compared to other similar restaurant 
    51        businesses --- 
    52        A.  I dis ----- 
    53
    54   Q.   -- and the same union ---
    55        A.  I disagree with that.
    56
    57   Q.   -- which is the evidence of the person who was asked to
    58        make statement for McDonald's?
    59        A.  You are asking me what I am aware of, sir, and I am
    60        telling you that there were some disputes with us.  There

Prev Next Index