Day 150 - 07 Jul 95 - Page 36
1 put it that way?
2 A. Practically not; just in terms of being a service
3 business, being a restaurant business, not having the right
4 number of people on is going to cause difficulties in terms
5 of serving people, in terms of -- I guess everyone else has
6 to or will have to work harder in that respect. It does
7 not make the Manager's life any easier. If anything, it
8 makes the Manager's life very hard if you do not have
9 sufficient people on. It would not make any sense for them
10 to have to work that hard.
11
12 Q. Was Colchester, at the time we are talking about, was that
13 under-staffed?
14 A. No.
15
16 Q. It is just something you said in your statement,
17 Mr. Stanton, but was Mr. Taylor, he is the Senior
18 Supervisor, is he not?
19 A. Yes.
20
21 Q. Was he concerned that you were under-staffed in Colchester
22 in 1986 to 1987 and you say in your statement if anything,
23 he would have liked a bit of a higher labour?
24 A. OK. That is more to do with the business side of it in
25 terms of -- when I mentioned earlier that we would schedule
26 to anticipated business, part of the training that I got at
27 that stage was rather than just specifically schedule for,
28 let us say, 15,000 people coming into the restaurant that
29 week, Tim's suggestion was schedule for 17,000 coming in,
30 anticipate business, doing more business rather than
31 anticipating doing what you think it is going to do. So
32 the idea of "put more people on" will encourage more people
33 to come in, basically. That is what I think I meant by
34 that.
35
36 Q. If we can pass on to the subject of young people. By that
37 I mean under 18 people working for McDonald's. When you
38 were a Store Manager, was that something you were, I say
39 concerned about -- that is a word that sometimes has been
40 misunderstood in this case, but was it something your job
41 involved looking at?
42 A. Yes, in terms of scheduling that I had requirements to
43 make sure that under 18s did not work past those specific
44 hours for male and females.
45
46 Q. Was it a serious matter to you to comply with that, to
47 comply with the -- sorry, the rules on under 18s not
48 working more than the legally accepted number of hours?
49 A. It was a serious consideration in terms of the legal
50 implications and, secondly, in terms of almost people,
51 moral obligations working with those individuals, or having
52 their parents come to me telling me that they have been
53 working over. So there was a human interest in there as
54 well as a legal interest, if I could put it that way.
55
56 Q. What about when you became Area Supervisor at Colchester in
57 the mid-1980s, was it -- I think you have answered this
58 already but if you could just say again -- was it any part
59 of your responsibility to check up on whether under 18s
60 were doing the right number of hours as far as the law was
