Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 47


     
     1        fairly minor, over a period of about ten years out of a
              world base of 840,000 people roughly.
     2
              The next question, my Lord:  Are the plaintiffs hostile to
     3        Trade Unions?  I ask this rhetorical question:  Would it
              matter if they were?  I go on to answer that indirectly by
     4        saying that a contented workforce does not need Trade
              Unions.  In fact, of course, the plaintiffs are not
     5        hostile to Trade Unions.  The plaintiffs are, in fact,
              quite happy that their workers should be represented by
     6        Trade Unions, provided always -- this is the key to it --
              that is what the employees themselves want.  In most cases
     7        it is not what the employees, want.
 
     8        As your Lordship knows, the defendants allege a number of
              disputes between the plaintiffs and unions throughout the
     9        world during the last 30 years.  The evidence of
              Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Stein and others will show that most
    10        of these allegations are simply distortions (in some
              rather ghastly distortions) of what actually happened in
    11        the individual cases.  But again, my Lord, I ask the
              question:  So what?
    12
              My Lord, it is the business of Trade Unions to try and
    13        invade the workplace in search of members.  It is the
              business of responsible employers like McDonald's to repel
    14        those invasions so long as the workers wish them to do
              so.  My Lord, that really is the beginning and the end of
    15        the history of McDonald's relationship with Trade Unions.
 
    16        Nevertheless, there is one particularly unpleasant
              allegation made by the defendants which I ought to deal
    17        with now, because they have continued to repeat it in some
              of the material they have disseminated since this action
    18        began.  I will give your Lordship the reference later.
 
    19        This unpleasant allegation is as follows, that in
              San Francisco in the early 1970s McDonald's forced their
    20        employees to take lie detector tests in order to discover
              whether they had pro-union sympathies.
    21
              This, my Lord, is a wicked falsehood and the defendants
    22        know very well that it is.  The lie detector tests (or
              polygraph tests, as they are sometimes called) which were
    23        used by the first plaintiffs in San Francisco in the early
              1970s were used for one purpose and one purpose alone;
    24        that was to try to find out whether employees had been
              stealing money from the company.
    25
              Finally, my Lord, there is this question; whether, as the 
    26        defendants repeatedly assert, the plaintiffs have ever 
              sacked anyone for wanting to join a Trade Unions or having 
    27        union sympathies.  Again the answer to this question is
              emphatically, never.
    28
              The next question under "employment" is this:  Are
    29        opportunities for promotion in McDonald's minimal?  Again
              the answer is, no.  On the contrary, they are excellent
    30        and the proportions for people promoted from within the
              company in this country will be given to your Lordship in

Prev Next Index