Particular characteristics of the McDonald's workforce and wider labour
practices militate against trade union development in the company. These
include:
* high labour turnover. If the 60% labour turnover figure at McDonald's
referred to in the contentious leaflet is now more or less accepted as near to
the true position, this is double the 35.4% industry average for the restaurant
sector, according to the latest report by the Hotel and Catering Training
Company [Employment Flows in the catering and hospitality sector: 1994]. It
is therefore doubly difficult in this company to recruit, retain and
successfully
represent union members;
* the company employs a high percentage of workers under 21 years of age,
including students in large numbers, who do not expect to enjoy a long stay at
the company, and who are unlikely to have a trade union background: Peter
Sutcliffe's case was an exception;
* the employment of a high proportion of part-time staff on variable shifts
makes for difficulties in maintaining regular contact with crew interested in
joining a union;
* fear of dismissal. Of the 27 witness statements from former employees, 14
refer to trade unionism. Company hostility, real or perceived, features in most
of these cases. Until 1995, part-time staff have had to work for five years, and
full-timers for two years, before gaining the right to claim wrongful dismissal
at an industrial tribunal; and
* employment conditions potentially restricting trade union activity in a
restaurant: see Crew Handbook, page 24, conditions k and l, which would
debar the distribution of union literature or the collection of union dues,
whether staff are on or off duty.
For these reasons, the McDonald's staffing and labour relations system, in
my view, is fundamentally inimicable to unions. This may appear in the form
of a prevailing anti-union-initiatives culture at store management level, as
would appear from the employee statements; or in the arrival of senior
personnel at the scene of tentative first attempts to estabhsh a union presence:
I refer to Mr Nicholson's statement, paras 29-42. Notwithstanding his denial
in para 34 (no policy of getting rid of pro-union workers), employee
statements confirm such incidents in Dublin; or refer to the fear of dismissal;
or to rumours of McDonald's closing down a unionised restaurant; or to the
belief that a pretext would be found for dismissing staff interested in unions.
The company appears to take few steps to ensure that all staff are aware of
their right to join a trade union, and that union membership would not put
their employment in jeopardy.
What would a reasonable modern employer, willing to recognise a trade
union, offer its workforce? At a well-unionised restaurant the size of a typical
McDonald's unit, with say 80 full- and part-time staff, I would expect to see a
basic union recognition agreement with two or three elected, trained shop
stewards covering the range of shifts. By virtue of union recognition, the
restaurant would have a health and safety at work committee, with trained
safety representatives accredited under the Health and Safety at Work Act,
meeting regularly, with management, undertaking regular, joint safety
inspections. A jointly-agreed grievance and disciplinary procedure would
involve independent, trained union representatives available to represent
staff in a fair and competent manner, with employee access to a full-time
union official and other union legal resources. There might also be local
substantive negotiations on pay and conditions, and company-wide
bargaining, depending on the overall union density within the operation.
Awareness of statutory employment rights, including health and safety,
wages councils and the employment of young persons, form part of union
shop steward training courses.