Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 28


     
     1
     2        We have the document for the whole of the United Kingdom
     3        because, apparently, the British computer is a more
     4        effective instrument than its American counterpart.
     5
     6        My Lord, then I do not think I need say anything more about
     7        the turnover figures.  I do not know whether for the years
     8        1988 to 1990 it is possible to produce the kind of hard
     9        data which Lyn Mead produced for this country.  Remember,
    10        my Lord, the last of her computer printout sheets not only
    11        gave turnover figures and percentages, but it actually gave
    12        the hard numbers underlying those percentages.
    13
    14        My Lord, again, quite aside from the question of whether
    15        I can in any way get round that (to save people the
    16        trouble) by the Civil Evidence Act -- which I probably
    17        can -- one does really ask: what is the point, except of
    18        course, so far as the Defendants are concerned, to cost the
    19        Plaintiffs time and money?
    20
    21        I say that for this reason, that the question at the end
    22        the case for your Lordship -- I nearly said the end of the
    23        day, but I checked myself -- is really this, we would
    24        submit:  again, it is perfectly apparent on the existing
    25        percentage given for the United States at, I think,
    26        volume XII tab 41, the percentages are for all years
    27        (though declining) well in excess of 100 per cent,
    28        sometimes nearly 200 per cent in the earlier years.  The
    29        first question:  what inference can be drawn from that
    30        fact?  This is what matters in the case:  is it legitimate
    31        to draw from those figures an inference that a significant
    32        number of the people represented by those percentages left
    33        McDonald's because they were dissatisfied with their
    34        conditions?  That is the only relevant consideration, after
    35        all, in the turnover figures.  Aside from that, they have
    36        no meaning whatsoever; they are mere fact.
    37
    38        That being so, my Lord, whether the turnover figures are
    39        150 per cent, 170 per cent, 130 per cent, really does not
    40        matter one way or the other.
    41
    42        Again, I am not saying that if such figures were
    43        recoverable they would not be relevant in approving -- in
    44        one sense, I am sure they would be.  I question, however,
    45        whether that kind of discovery at this stage of the case is
    46        necessary for the fair disposal of the action or the saving
    47        of costs.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What was the reference for the equivalent
    50        document for the UK; that is, one set of figures back from 
    51        the turnover sheet, as it were? 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  The computer printout document, is that what
    54        your Lordship is asking?
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I just wanted reminding generally.  Was it
    57        the figures which were sent to Oak Brook?  Do you remember
    58        there was a series of memos?
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  No.  They are the same, really, as the American

Prev Next Index