Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 46
1 is no, the plaintiffs' rates of pay, wherever in the
world, are and always have been above minimum and
2 represent a fair award for a fair day's work.
3 What is perhaps just as important is the plaintiffs'
provide welcome job opportunities for many thousands of
4 people throughout the world. For many young people,
particularly students, a job at McDonald's is ideal
5 employment because they can work in hours of the day and
times of the year which suit them. The same, of course,
6 is true of mothers with school age children.
7 The second question: Are the plaintiffs' policies and
practices in relation to the health and safety of their
8 employees open to serious criticism? What one might call
health and safety at work. Again, my Lord, the answer is,
9 no. Any restaurant which serves food, particularly if it
serves it quickly, presents some potential hazard and
10 injury, that is obvious. There are, after all, hot
grills, hot fat, sharp instruments, floors which are
11 sometimes slippery and often many people to be served in a
great hurry.
12
However, the plaintiffs' thorough training programme on
13 employees' safety, which are uniformed throughout the
world, and the disciplined application of those programmes
14 in the restaurant mean that these inherent hazards are
kept to a bare minimum.
15
Witnesses of the plaintiffs will describe the programmes.
16 Mr. Chris Purslow (whose reference is yellow bundle X/40
and 41) is an independent environmental health consultant
17 who has examined the plaintiffs' procedures and inspected
a selection of their restaurants in action. He will
18 confirm that the plaintiffs' policies and practices in
relation to the safety of their employees are extremely
19 good.
20 My Lord, of course, this does not mean that accidents
never happen. It is perfectly natural that they should
21 and they do. My Lord, once again, however, one has to
look at this as a question of proportion. One has to look
22 at it in the context of the size of the plaintiffs'
operation worldwide. I remind your Lordship that the
23 plaintiffs have about 14,000 restaurants in 70 countries
around the world.
24
It is estimated that the average number of employees per
25 restaurant is about 60 people. This means that the total
number of employees in the restaurant in the world at any
26 one time is about 840,000.
27 My Lord that is a huge potential base for accidents at
work. My Lord, yet what are the defendants able to
28 allege? Your Lordship will notice that I ignore the
question at this stage: What are they actually able to
29 prove?
30 What they are able to allege is something like a dozen
accidents and injuries, some serious certainly, but most
