Day 172 - 12 Oct 95 - Page 27

     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  I quite agree.  I am not saying that matters.  It
     2        does, though, perhaps flavour the way this statement is
     3        written, because there is an awful lot of it in this
     4        particular statement.  No blame attaches to the Defendants
     5        for that, because this statement was written long before
     6        this action was ever commenced, so far as I am aware.
     7
     8        Top of page 5, my Lord, second sentence; and this is an
     9        objection which is of a slightly different kind, because it
    10        is a witness of fact giving his opinion.  It is
    11        speculation.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, which part are we looking at?
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  Top of page 5.  This is objectionable in itself,
    16        since witnesses of fact are not allowed to do that.  They
    17        are allowed to draw inferences which explain why they
    18        behaved as they did behave.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:   Could you just say which sentence you are referring
         to, because we are not sure?
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  Top of page 5: "I can only conclude that it" --
    24        which is the 100 minute clock -- "enabled McDonald's to
    25        save on seconds worth of pay, and presumably across the
    26        world this represents quite a saving."  That is a matter
    27        for your Lordship.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL: The Defendants would lose nothing if that came
    30        out anyway, because it is a matter or argument which they
    31        can put and either appeals or does not appeal.  It all
    32        depends, in any event, upon whether I think it is reliable
    33        that the -- it does not make much difference whether it is
    34        100 minutes or 100 units.
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  No, it does not.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What is said is that a minute was not a
    39        refined enough unit for McDonald's; they wanted to be able
    40        to divide time up into smaller amounts.  Anyway, there we
         are.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  In the mouth of a witness of fact, it is an
    44        objectionable sentiment.
    45
    46        Then he goes on: "All employees were made to clock on and
    47        off each time they took a break."  Nothing the matter with
    48        that.  Then he says: "I was amazed by the fact that if an
    49        employee clocked out for a break and forgot to clock back
    50        on again, his or her wages were actually docked."  It is 
    51        conceivable that he witnessed that happening.  Maybe it 
    52        happened to him, I do not know.  But it is the next 
    53        sentence, again, which is a speculation based on apparently
    54        nothing:  "This was meant to be a deterrent."  A deterrent
    55        from what, one does not know.  Clocking off, I suppose, or
    56        taking a break.  He could have said, but did not, "I found
    57        this to be a deterrent against taking a break."  What he
    58        cannot do is assist the court by attributing a motive to
    59        McDonald's for which he has no evidence.  It is
    60        objectionable on the same grounds as the earlier passage.