Day 120 - 03 May 95 - Page 45
1 you have already managed to mount on the hypothesis I have
2 put forward that McDonald's is happy with sackings for
3 union activity. But I do not know whether you will
4 establish such a case in the UK. I will have to wait and
5 hear what the evidence is.
6
7 MS. STEEL: I should have said the UK company is part of
8 McDonald's Corporation as well, so the point is, is it all
9 part of McDonald's?
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is not just part, it is a wholly-owned
12 subsidiary, I have been told.
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: Can I come back to where we started from, my Lord.
15 I have heard nothing. I have seen nothing on paper whether
16 in the Defendants witness statements or pleadings, and I
17 have heard from Mr. Nicholson, which leads me to suppose
18 that any kind of a franchisee agreement is disclosable. If
19 your Lordship urges upon me that I am wrong about that,
20 then I would need time to think about it and to argue, if I
21 thought right.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would like you to think about it, for this
24 reason, because a proportion of all McDonald's stores -- by
25 which I mean those taking advantage of the McDonald's brand
26 name, and the benefit of various services from the first
27 plaintiff -- so defined, and perhaps a significant
28 proportion, are part of what is going on around the world
29 under the banner of McDonald's (if I can describe it in
30 that way) and I may have to decide at the end of the day,
31 in various areas, to what extent the First Plaintiff bears
32 responsible for that insofar as those practices can be
33 criticised. I would have thought, but I do not know, that
34 there is a very carefully modelled franchise agreement.
35
36 MR. RAMPTON: I am sure there is.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: In every case I have -- I have to say there
39 are not very many -- been involved in at the Bar where
40 there were franchises, and it is remarkable in how many
41 areas of commercial life the business is not actually run
42 by the person whose brand name is plastered all over it,
43 but by an entirely different company, but because the brand
44 name is so important there are extremely carefully worded
45 model franchise agreements, which may be adapted from
46 country to country or contractual relationship to
47 contractual relationship in relatively minor respects, but
48 there they are.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I am sure that is right. If there every came
51 a point, I quite agree, where the strict legality of the
52 corresponding obligations and responsibility was in
53 question, then I can quite see the franchise agreement
54 would govern that relationship, and might help your
55 Lordship to determine that particular issue. But, as far
56 as I am aware, there is nothing in this case which gives
57 rise to that question. In a broader sense, of course, it
58 is a matter for your Lordship's judgment, and not anything
59 to do with the franchise agreement, whether McDonald's
60 ought, even if they do not actually, to accept
