Day 303 - 19 Nov 96 - Page 19


     
     1        entitlement to be significant but here we have scores of
     2        examples just in a few pages.
     3
     4        I did check the handbooks, the Crew Handbook.  There is
     5        none for 1990 that were disclosed.  Maybe it was not
     6        printed for 1990, but the 1989 handbook, basically - it is
     7        the same in all the handbooks - it identifies what the
     8        McDonald's break allowances are, and that was on page 24 of
     9        the 1989 handbook or bundle page 133 in the relevant pink
    10        volume with all the crew handbooks which gives the
    11        statutory provisions.  No, it gives what McDonald's
    12        considers to be its practice, statutory or not, their
    13        entitlement.  Anyway, if it is in the Crew Handbook, then
    14        it is part of your statutory entitlement because it is part
    15        of your contract.
    16
    17        So if you do not get your 45 minutes, which is in your
    18        contract, you are, as far as we can see, in breach of the
    19        law -- well, not the person but the manager responsible,
    20        the company is in breach of the law.  They are in breach of
    21        contract as well as statutory provision.
    22
    23        Just looking at a few more documents.  I did not actually
    24        mention the -- I did mention it but I did not quote the
    25        deferred prohibition notice from Manchester City Council
    26        regarding the electrocution of Mark Hopkins in 1992, where
    27        it says the environmental health and consumer protection
    28        department, Michael Sherkey, in the notice says:  "I am of
    29        the opinion that the following activity, namely the use of
    30        portable electrical appliances in the wash-up area of the
    31        above premises without the protection of a residual current
    32        device installed thereto, will involve a risk of serious
    33        personal injury.  I am further of the opinion that the said
    34        matters involve contraventions of the following statutory
    35        provisions: that is Regulation 6 of the electricity at work
    36        regulations 1989.  The reasons for my opinion are: the use
    37        of portable electrical appliances in the wash-up area of
    38        the above premises will involve a risk of serious personal
    39        injury by reason of the fact that in the course of work
    40        activities carried on therein such equipment may be exposed
    41        to mechanical damage and the effects of wet conditions.
    42        Such exposure could result in the leakage of electrical
    43        current from the equipment with the consequent risk of a
    44        fire being started or persons being electrocuted by
    45        indirect contact.  I hereby direct that the said activities
    46        should not be carried on by you under your control after
    47        the 20th November 1992.
    48
    49        To me, that is a clear breach of the electricity at work
    50        regulations and that McDonald's are therefore culpable for
    51        what happened.  And it is just a shame that the inquest was
    52        not given the full details in McDonald's own investigation.
    53
    54        I wanted to mention this.  It is hard to know what status
    55        to give this document.  This was H3.  I do not know if it
    56        was behind Lyn Mead or what.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is behind Lyn Mead.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  It was the McDonald's opinion survey of crew of

Prev Next Index