Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 30

     
     1        Then over on page 223, Mr. Lantus asks:  "So what you are
     2        trying to do is differentiate between violations of federal
     3        law and violations of state law?"  Mr. Stein: "That is
     4        correct", which, as far as I can see, was a trick by Mr.
     5        Stein.  Mr. Lantus says:  "So you admit to large numbers of
     6        state violations; this is for the Corporation owned
     7        stores?"  "No, sir, we do not".  "How many do you admit
     8        to?"  Mr. Stein:  "I think there have been a few in our
     9        history.  I cannot give you a precise number".  So,
    10        Mr. Stein believes there have been citations of Corporate
    11        owned stores in their history.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You would go further than that, would not --
    14        not citations but actual violations.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  Actually violations, yes, that is correct.  I think
    17        that, personally, the two are the same thing.  It depends
    18         -----
    19
    20
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would urge you to apply your mind to that
    22        because you must not assume that -- they are certainly not
    23        the same thing in law; it is just a question of whether one
    24        can draw an inference from the citation.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  So that is my basis for the paragraph 2:
    27         "Some further Corporate owned McDonald's stores had also
    28        violated the child labour regulations before the sweep in
    29        early 1990".  Of course, that contradicts what Mr. Stein
    30        had said in the previous page of the transcript.  It also
    31        contradicts what he said in the witness box in this case,
    32        that the McDonald's Corporation has never been cited for
    33        child labour violations in any restaurant in which it has
    34        operated.  That is what he said to Congress on page 222.
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  If that is what it is based on, then the pleading
    37        ought to be amended to reflect what Mr. Stein actually said
    38        and not what Mr. Morris wishes he had said.  What he
    39        actually said was, in effect, this, if this is the right
    40        interpretation:  "A few Corporate owned McDonald's stores
         had violated state child labour regulations between 1956
    42        and early 1990".
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That would make it clearer, would it not,
    45        Mr. Morris?
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, what was -----
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you, after the word "violated" in 2
    50        inserts the word "state", because it was with regard to 
    51        state laws that Mr. Stein was giving that answer. 
    52 
    53   MR. MORRIS:  I mean -----
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Again it does not make any deference.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:  It does not make any difference to me at all.  He
    58        actually said at the previous page,"has never been cited
    59        for child labour violations".  So, I was just contrasting
    60        the pleading with what he had said.  I do not see why