Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 05

     
     1        felt discouraged not to do those things that were being
     2        stipulated, for that person they would have an industrial
     3        tribunal winable case.  Of course, they would have to
     4        prove, you know, whatever, that they had intent to give out
     5        some union leaflets at work, or something, and felt
     6        inhibited from doing so under their contract.
     7
     8        If that is any help, that is the way I understand it.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Very well.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:   But, in terms of this case, it is clearly a policy
    13        and the fact that it is not necessarily implemented at all
    14        times would only be typical in terms of McDonald's
    15        policies, because their policies are not implemented at all
    16        times, as we have heard.
    17
    18        What would be implemented would be a clear message to all
    19        workers that any kind of union type activity or contact
    20        with unions was against the McDonald's rules in the
         contract.  So that impression is being given all the time
    22        to every worker at McDonald's.
    23
    24        Finally on the subject, and I did say it before.  Just two
    25        things.  First of all, I think it is significant -- I did
    26        say it before -- that very few of our witnesses on this
    27        issue were challenged by the Plaintiffs and our
    28        understanding, which we actually are still trying to
    29        research on this subject, is that a failure to challenge
    30        evidence is, in effect, accepting certainly the sting of
    31        the evidence, and we believe that we were encouraged to
    32        challenge their evidence or else we seemed to be accepting
    33        the sting of it.
    34
    35        Finally, it is something about the last point, which is
    36        that it has not been possible to, I did say, take the kind
    37        of detailed notes or go through transcripts that would
    38        enable us to put to you the full strength of our case on
    39        this issue and that, therefore, we are seeking the
    40        protection of the court for our interests to be taken into
         consideration.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think you need be concerned about
    44        that.  I have never been involved in a case ever where
    45        counsel, solicitor or litigant in person has referred to
    46        all the matters which they would rely upon in the
    47        evidence.  It is just not possible.  You have to rely upon
    48        the judge having heard the evidence, whether you refer to
    49        it or not.
    50 
    51   MS. STEEL:   Just a few general points.  This argument about 
    52        comparing what weight you can give to the number of 
    53        incidents that have been referred to in this case, bearing
    54        in mind the number of employees there are employed around
    55        the world by the Corporation, we would say that it is wrong
    56        to make comparisons with the number of witnesses versus the
    57        number of employees in total.  Obviously, there is -- I do
    58        not know how many employees there are of the Plaintiffs
    59        around the world, Dave says it is about one and a half
    60        million.  So, there is absolutely no way we would, even if