Day 119 - 02 May 95 - Page 29


     
     1        I am wrong, but I thought there had been an admission about
     2        two particular employees that were on a time sheet.  Am
     3        I wrong?  Can someone tell me I am wrong, if I am wrong?
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you look at the schedule of admissions on
     6        pages 3 and 4, it has the Guildford Magistrates
     7        conviction, that is November 1982; it has the Slough
     8        Magistrates Court, October 1984, it has Luton Magistrates
     9        Court in September 1992 and then the Pennsylvanian one.
    10        Those are in relation to prosecutions over hours and
    11        records.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  May be it has not been a formal admission but
    14        it has been brought up in court about -----
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Does it matter because Mr. Nicholson is
    17        saying he did not know about it?  There is only any point
    18        in pursuing it with Mr. Nicholson if you suggest he is not
    19        being honest in saying that he did not know.  Not everyone
    20        knows everything.  The fact that he does not know about it
    21        does not mean to say you cannot establish it happened,
    22        nevertheless.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  No, it was actually the Orpington branch.  It is
    25        paragraph 31 of the Employment Practices Defence pleadings,
    26        page 13.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Why do you not just put it to Mr. Nicholson
    29        and see if that jogs his memory?
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  It came up in the case earlier on; there was a time
    32        sheet in the Orpington branch at which Mary Thomas, female,
    33        under 18, worked after midnight on 27th, 28th and 29th
    34        April 1987; two young employees, M. Harrison and
    35        E. Southwood were not allowed an 11 hour break between
    36        shifts in a 24-hour period; a former employee between
    37        28th and 29th October and a latter employee between 30th
    38        and 31st October 1987."   This came to light as a result,
    39        I believe, of a time schedule which we produced at some
    40        stage in the case, I cannot remember, earlier on.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Why not just put it to Mr. Nicholson because
    43        he either knows or he does not know?
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS (To the witness):  Were you aware of that?
    46        A.  No.
    47
    48   Q.   The point of bringing it up is -- I am 100 per cent
    49        convinced that that has been established, but assuming that
    50        it is established as a fact and this was at a time when you 
    51        were in charge of personnel, and if that did not come to 
    52        light to you, as you said -- what would have been the 
    53        system for monitoring breaches of employment regulations of
    54        young people in stores, McDonald's stores, for the
    55        Company?  What was the Company's monitoring system and
    56        statistical compilation of these kinds of matters?
    57        A.  The responsibility for ensuring correct compliance with
    58        the regulations regarding hours worked rests with the
    59        supervisory staff of the store, the store Manager, the
    60        supervisory staff at the store and the Field Personnel

Prev Next Index