Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 47


     
     1        Lordship, that McDonald's accepted, and if this is the same
     2        hearing Mr. Stein has told your Lordship and Mr. Morris
     3        that they did not accept it, that they accepted that they
     4        were guilty of any of those 15,500 violations.
     5
     6        My Lord, No. 5 is plainly I think supposed to be a
     7        franchisee case.  What we are not told, even if this is
     8        true, is what happened next and that is something we would
     9        have to find out if this amendment is allowed.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause a moment please.
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  The next two, my Lord, also Fair Lawn and Trenton,
    14        New Jersey, we are not told whether it is a company
    15        restaurant or a franchisee.  Sioux Falls, perhaps South
    16        Dakota, though it is pleaded that the US Labour Department
    17        fined McDonald's Corporation for child labour violations
    18        involving 179 minors at eight local stores, what the
    19        pleading does not say, which we now know, is that
    20        McDonald's appealed against that decision.  There are one
    21        sees yet again the door opening to what one might call a
    22        confession and avoidance as Mr. Stein presented to your
    23        Lordship.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It actually says that, does it?
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  I think it says it on page 16, yes.  Yes,
    28        "McDonald's will appeal Federal fines", this is at the top
    29        of the page, "for child labour law violations, a restaurant
    30        spokesman says".  That was in April 1993.  I do not know
    31        how quickly Sioux Falls or the South Dakota labour court
    32        moves, whichever court it is, but it is quite possibly by
    33        this time we have a result and it is quite possibly we have
    34        not, in which case one can see the saving of all these
    35        privileged documents, and one can see Sioux Falls or
    36        whoever it is opening a mass of documents falling out apt
    37        to show whether or not this was a true bill or if it was
    38        what McDonald's did about it, if it was a case where
    39        McDonald's Corporation was brought in.
    40
    41        My Lord, I will not refer to any of the next three
    42        specifically, except, as I have said before, we will repeat
    43        in the context of this case, so what?
    44
    45        I go to 11, if I may which, is pages 28 and 29 of the sheaf
    46        and I see that it is alleged that McDonald's in North
    47        Kensington, Rhode Island in or around March and June 1990
    48        was found to be employing 14 and 15 year old workers during
    49        improper hours in breach of the child labour laws.  This
    50        resulted in a fine from the US Department of Labour.  When 
    51        one looks at Mr. Morris' computerised extract one finds 
    52        nothing of the kind.  What one finds is on page 29 that 
    53        Mr. Shavez, the official concerned, said the latest
    54        alleged -- I am sorry, it is at the top of the page,
    55        Mr. Shavez said: "The new alleged violator in Rhode Island
    56        was McDonald's of North Kingstown," etc. etc.  Then at the
    57        bottom of the page it says:  "McDonald's has a right to
    58        challenge the allegation, if not challenged then to pay the
    59        fine."  There again one can see the door opening to another
    60        two or three days litigation on that incident in wherever

Prev Next Index