Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 04
1 irrelevant. There we are.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: Anybody who worked overtime at Bath, for example,
6 in August, in the documents that we have got for Bath, then
7 the whole section, their actual schedules -- I cannot
8 remember if we have actually got the time sheets, the clock
9 cards. (Pause). We have not got the Bath documents here,
10 but before the Act was repealed anything from Bath that was
11 pre-end of August 1993 would also be covered by the
12 overtime provisions as well. If you need the originals of
13 that Joanne Bishop, then I have them, if you need them any
14 time. If Mr. Rampton wants to verify that we have the
15 originals, I can show them to him.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Keep anything like that which you have
18 proffered to me but which I have not taken in some safe
19 place, because if, when I am writing my judgment, I need
20 it, Mr. Glenn can get in touch with you and ask for it.
21
22 MR. MORRIS: Yes, fine. Just a few final points. Just on the
23 subject of being paid for breaks, I think it should be
24 noted that McDonald's workers used to be paid for breaks.
25 If you remember, they brought in the unpaid breaks system
26 and offered people some kind of paltry compensation which
27 resulted in a loss of wages for those that chose, or were
28 told they had to now have unpaid breaks.
29
30 So I would say that the system that existed, I cannot
31 remember when they were brought in, I think it was in the
32 mid late '80s -- and we had evidence on it -- but the
33 system as it was before was the fairer and more normal
34 system and would have also meant that people were likely to
35 take their break entitlement as they were being paid for
36 it. So that was a double, if you like, worsening of
37 conditions when McDonald's introduced their new unpaid
38 breaks.
39
40 Just a couple of final points now. Something on the
41 meaning, where we have said that in the fact sheet
42 McDonald's have a policy of preventing unionisation, which,
43 as we believe, we have demonstrated clearly from their Crew
44 Handbook, which is clearly a policy of preventing
45 unionisation, amongst other things. But the fact that it
46 may not be carried out to the letter in every instance does
47 not undermine the fact that it is still a McDonald's
48 policy, bearing in mind in this case that McDonald's
49 policies are what they say 'guidelines'; so the fact that
50 Mr. Rampton can show that somebody did put up a poster and
51 did not get disciplined or did contact a union and did not
52 get sacked, does not in any way affect the fact they had a
53 policy of preventing unionisation through the methods,
54 through the regulations in the contract that the workers
55 signed and agreed to when they started at McDonald's, which
56 we would argue is an unlawful contract.
57
58 My understanding of the law on this, and I got some advice
59 on it, was that it is the implementation of that contract
60 that would be unlawful. So any worker who ever, you know,
