Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 22

     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I meant quarter to two.  I think it will be
     2        probably be more productive if we take our break now and
     3        come back a little earlier.
     4
     5                        (Luncheon Adjournment)
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes?
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  Employment conditions, No. 1, if we go to page 36
    10        which is in the second of the two statements, the one that
    11        is numbered from 30 onwards, page 36, the second paragraph
    12        refers to a National Labour Relations Board ruling against
    13        McDonald's which McDonald's appealed against regarding
    14        labour layoffs.  It looks like McDonald's application was
    15        based upon the NLRB had refused to permit an evidentiary
    16        hearing.  There we have what I believe is a case
    17        No. 91/1400 USA and a date as well.  That deals with that
    18        one.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What do you say that means which is critical
         of McDonald's?
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS:  It seems to me that it is connected with McDonald's
    24        ability or otherwise to be able to lay off staff at will.
    25        I think that Mr. Stein mentioned something about the "at
    26        will" clause being or went through a period of
    27        controversy.  So I expect it is just connected with that,
    28        with employees' rights, some kind of job security.
    29
    30        The next one, No. 2, if we go to pages 45 and 46 -- this is
    31        around July 29th, 1989 -- I do not want to read out the
    32        whole section of this but, basically, that page and over
    33        the page, even to giving details of the solicitor actually
    34        on the other page, is about staff safety although it
    35        strictly relates to security.  But the point in dispute
    36        was, if we look at the bottom of the page:  "McDonald's
    37        have violated labour code of the State of California which
    38        prohibits the discrimination against employees who make
    39        oral or written complaints about workplace safety to either
    40        their employer or a government agency.  Further, labour
         codes section 6311 forbids the termination or lay off of an
    42        employee who refuses to work in conditions which violate
    43        the provisions of the Californian code".  It does not say
    44        "code", it says Cal. OSHA -- maybe it is Office of Safety
    45        and Health, I do not know, something.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but where do I find the decision?
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  There is no decision there.  I do not think that --
    50        they were accused, so obviously the staff member believes 
    51        they were unfairly discriminated against for making oral or 
    52        written complaints and refusing to work in unsafe 
    53        conditions.  So, the fact that she took out that case is in
    54        itself a statement about her opinion, her belief.  I do not
    55        know what the result of that hearing was.  But the right to
    56        complain about safety matters is a fundamental prerequisite
    57        for being able to improve safety conditions.  If McDonald's
    58        employees cannot do that, then they cannot improve the
    59        conditions.
    60