Day 181 - 01 Nov 95 - Page 60
1 can get more out of the figures than I can get. I have the
2 benefit of having heard all the background evidence in
3 relation to McDonald's which Mr. Pearson has not heard.
4 Even if he had heard it, he would not know what I was going
5 to find I accepted and what I rejected. So I suggest you
6 leave it for argument in due course, Mr. Morris.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: Yes, OK.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Pearson's main point is that, adopting
11 Mr. Rampton's language, RIDDOR accidents are, of course,
12 important but Mr. Pearson says the problem in the catering
13 industry is not so much RIDDOR accidents, but those on a
14 level below which are still not minor but are not serious
15 enough to qualify compulsory reporting.
16 A. Of which there are -----
17
18 Q. That is your main point, Mr. Pearson, is it not?
19 A. It is, and of that category of accident there is a
20 proliferation and I wish I had been provided with a copy of
21 the Accident Book of the two stores in question, because,
22 in my view, they did show a proliferation of sub-RIDDOR
23 incidents, which, you know, we could have looked at in
24 detail to see what they point to and to see what, you know,
25 the repeating pattern of accidents is classic in the
26 catering industry. I well recall the general pattern in
27 that store in Narrow Way, wet floors, cut fingers and burns
28 over the three categories, and certain things can be done
29 about those, particularly wet floors, but the wet floor
30 problem occurs and recurs throughout the Accident Book in
31 that store, in my recollection.
32
33 So, you know, I think it is fair to say that the sub-RIDDOR
34 issue is one which bothers me probably more than anything
35 in terms of the outcome of hustle which is where you came
36 in on my questions.
37
38 MR. MORRIS: No further questions.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you.
41
42 MR. MORRIS: Thank you very much.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment. (To the witness):
45 Mr. Pearson, that concludes your evidence, thank you. We
46 have an issue in the case on the question of whether it is
47 enough, whether by agreement with the Inspectorate or, as a
48 matter of law, to pay an employee a gross wage at the end
49 of the week which would be at least as much as you would
50 get by following each of the Wages Council's steps, time
51 and an eighth, time and a quarter, time and a half and so
52 on, or whether, as a matter of law, if there were no
53 agreement to the contrary, you must go through each of the
54 hoops set out in the schedules to the order.
55
56 What might be helpful to Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris is if you
57 could notify them, not me, in writing or on the telephone
58 of any statutory (in which I include regulatory) provision
59 which would throw light on that, or if you know of any case
60 where that point has been tested in court, whether of your
