Day 143 - 27 Jun 95 - Page 14

     
     1        circumstance.
     2
     3   Q.   Was this a franchise store?
     4        A.  No, this was a Company store.
     5
     6   Q.   If a franchisee commits violations as serious as this one,
     7        what is your general response?
     8        A.  First of all, there was no legal violations here.  The
     9        things that were violated were McDonald's rules.  There is
    10        no prohibition in the state of Oregon concerning anything
    11        that the Manager did.  So, there is no violation of law.
    12        The person did work 12 hours in what I believe was a
    13        24-hour period.  There is no violation of law with regard
    14        to that.  That is perfectly legal under the state of
    15        Oregon.
    16
    17        However, McDonald's has rules that go beyond that as to how
    18        we want student employees treated and the number of hours
    19        that they work and working at night.  So, our requirements
    20        go far beyond what any legal requirements are as to the
         code of conduct we expect of our stores and our Managers
    22        with regard to employment of students.
    23
    24   Q.   Yes, it was actually 12 hours ---
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is 12 hours and 21 minutes.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  -- in a 17 hour period?
    29        A.  OK.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but -----
    32        A.  The way we state our rule is within any 24-hour period,
    33        so that is why I am saying 24 hours.
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  If we go to page 11, it refers to some rule, law or
    36        statute:  "... ORS 652.010 does not prescribe any
    37        particular number of hours that an employer may require its
    38        employees to work.  It merely states:  'It is the public
    39        policy of this state that no person shall be hired, nor
    40        permitted to work for wages, under any conditions or terms,
         for longer hours or days of service than is consistent with
    42        the person's health and physical well-being."   So there
    43        was a legal framework  ---
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  -- to deal with matters such as this.
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, there was not.  Mr. Morris must on
    50        this occasion read the next four lines.  It is wholly 
    51        improper to do things like that. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It does not apply to restaurants.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  Do you know why that seems not to apply to
    56        restaurants?  I missed that.
    57        A.  No, I have no idea.
    58
    59   Q.   I will not make a comment.  If we go to page 13, it then
    60        refers again on line 3:  "In fact, defendant was aware that