Day 138 - 20 Jun 95 - Page 70
1 MR. MORRIS: What page are we on?
2
3 MR. RAMPTON: 1378. The first numbered paragraph says:
4 "Plaintiffs are employees of Tyson Foods which is a chicken
5 processing plant in Nashville Arkansas where Tyson is
6 engaged almost exclusively in the production of Chicken
7 McNuggets under contract upon McDonald's restaurants in
8 Arkansas and other locations west of the Mississippi
9 River." Who funded this application by these employee
10 Plaintiffs of Tysons?
11 A. I can only assume it was the employees. We did not
12 fund it.
13
14 Q. You did not?
15 A. No, and the Tyson people did not fund it.
16
17 Q. They did not either?
18 A. No. This was an act apart from either McDonald's or
19 Tysons.
20
21 Q. I see that the action is headed "Roy Simpkins et al". Was
22 it a representative action or was it just a large number of
23 Plaintiffs on the same writ?
24 A. I believe it was a number of employees that worked at
25 the plant.
26
27 Q. "The Court find that the leaflets -- exhibits D, F and H,
28 my Lord, can be found later on if anybody cares to look
29 behind the judgment -- "which were circulated by Defendants
30 or caused to be circulated by Defendants" -- that is the
31 union -- "which circulation commenced on 7th March 1983 to
32 customers during the noon hour of McDonald's restaurants in
33 Arkansas and other locations urging McDonald's customers or
34 prospective customers not to purchase Chicken McNuggets
35 because of certain alleged unsanitary conditions existing
36 at Tyson that the purported unsanitary conditions are
37 false, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent, that the
38 purpose of the circulation of the leaflets by the
39 Defendants was to pressure Tyson to enter into a collective
40 bargaining agreement with Defendant local union 425."
41 Mr. Stein, did you attend this court hearing?
42 A. Yes, I was sitting in the audience.
43
44 Q. Was it defended by the union?
45 A. Yes, it was.
46
47 Q. Did the union give evidence?
48 A. Let me tell you what happened and determine if it was.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It says in the first paragraph that ----
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: I did not read that, I am sorry.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That there was a complaint, documents were
55 obviously put in, there was evidence but the Defendants had
56 not filed what is called a responsive pleading. The only
57 thing I have been looking through -- I understand that it
58 was an application for interlocutory relief, and it looks
59 as if the basis of such relief, the approach is somewhat
60 the same as this country.
