textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001018.txt

From world.std.com!mclibel-approval  Wed Sep 27 19:54:21 1995 remote from byteback
Received: by byteback.dircon.co.uk (1.65/waf)
	via UUCP; Wed, 27 Sep 95 21:56:23 1
	for will
Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [192.74.137.10]) by newsgate.dircon.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA21115 for <will@byteback.dircon.co.uk>; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:54:21 +0100
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.6.12/Spike-8-1.0)
	id OAA01840; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:25:02 -0400
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
	id AA01186; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:35 -0400
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
	id AA01158; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:33 -0400
From: dbriars@world.std.com
Message-Id: <199509271824.AA01158@world.std.com>
To: mclibel@world.std.com
Subject: Trial Summary  Jan 95 to Sept 95,  Part 2
Sender: mclibel-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mclibel@world.std.com

Subject: Trial Summary  Jan 95 to Sept 95,  Part 2
Date: Sept 27, 1995
From: McLibel Support Campaign, London

McLibel Support Campaign
c/o 5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX   UK
Tel/Fax  +44-171 713 1269

                 Trial Summary  Jan 95 to Sept 95,  Part 2
             (Trial Summary up to January 95 is also available)

Contents:
Part 1
	GENERAL
	NUTRITION & ADVERTISING
	DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
	PACKAGING - 
	LITTER - 
	FORESTS
	RAINFORESTS
	ANIMALS
	CATTLE
	CHICKENS

Part 2
	FOOD SAFETY
	EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS

---------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY

Food poisoning - John Atherton (responsible for food and employee
safety in McDonald's UK) admitted that McDonald's receives between
1500-2750 customer complaints of food poisoning a year, maybe more
than that.  The company also received complaints of 'foreign
bodies' in food sold.  Mr Walker had estimated 800 complaints
regarding hamburgers, mostly concerning bits of plastic.  Mr
Atherton stated it was 'slightly more' for chicken, mostly
concerning pieces of bone.

The court heard that there had been several occasions when the
authorities had taken action against McDonald's for selling raw or
undercooked meat products including an incident in November 1994
when a 3 year old girl was served undercooked Chicken McNuggets
containing salmonella.  The McNuggets were tested by local health
officials and declared unfit for human consumption.

The court also heard how the company now admitted responsibility
for a serious food poisoning outbreak in Preston in 1991, when
several customers were hospitalised as a result of eating
undercooked burgers contaminated by potentially deadly E.Coli
0157H bacteria.  They also admitted responsibility for a similar
outbreak in 1982 caused by the same type of bacteria, which
affected 47 people in Oregon and Michigan, USA.

NB: McDonald's have refused to call their own expert witness on
food poisoning, Colin Clarke, who prepared a detailed report
following a visit he made to three company stores.  The court
heard that, regarding the cooking of hamburgers (which he had
tested), Mr Clark "recommends that 73 degrees Celsius be the
internal minimum temperature of the final product, and that their
temperatures were not reaching that in all cases.  The minimum
was, in fact, 70 degrees Celsius."

The Corporation's confidential Operations Manual for all stores
world-wide was quoted.  It set a minimum internal temperature to
be reached of 64 degrees Celsius for a cooked burger.  Robert
Beavers said the company was "maybe 99.8%" sure this temperature
was safe.  But he believed it had been raised a degree or two
following the deaths of two customers of Jack-In-The-Box a couple
of years back, in a similar incident to the 1982 McDonald's one.
He admitted that this recent incident had "heightened the
awareness of everyone in the industry" and agreed that the US
Government "was concerned" about internal temperatures of cooked
burgers and was considering introducing regulations 'if
necessary'.

Dr Pattison said that so far as chicken products are concerned,
the principal hazards to human health are campylobacter and
salmonella food poisoning organisms.  Campylobacter was generally
found on 70% of raw poultry.  Whilst, he claimed, salmonella was
now only found in 1% of chickens coming into the plant, 25% of
samples of their deboned meat contained salmonella organisms.  He
said that particularly for the very young and very old, "a very
low number of organisms can cause food poisoning".  The company
did not test raw chicken for listeria, but Dr Pattison accepted
that 60% of raw chickens were contaminated with listeria
monocytogenes, which can also cause illness in people.  He said
that the bacteria would be killed when cooked, if the meat itself
reached 70 degrees Celsius for 2 minutes.

Bacteriological Contamination of beef products - McDonald's are
supplied with beef from a large percentage of UK abattoirs.
Timothy Chambers (Quality Assurance Manager from Midland Meat
Packers Ltd) expressed his concern that the widespread use of
water sprays in abattoirs to 'clean' carcasses merely spread
bacterial contamination around.  He said he would be concerned
about "health risks" from any batch of tested meat containing over
5 million bacteria per gram.

David Walker of McKeys explained how all raw beef supplies to
McKey process plants were sampled, microbiologically tested, and
categorised as 'satisfactory', 'passable', and 'unsatisfactory'.
He stated that 'unsatisfactory' related to beef which had a total
colony of more than 10 million bacteria per gram.  He then
admitted that such consignments were, in fact, not rejected and
were used for McDonald's hamburgers.  On top of this, he claimed
that any raw meat supplies arriving at over 4 degrees Celsius
would receive 'a cast iron rejection'.  But on being challenged
with McKeys own forms showing acceptance of beef arriving over 4
degrees Celsius, he admitted this happened and explained that
instead "the quality control officer receiving the meat would make
a management decision which was right for the company".

In January 1995, following months of effort by the Defendants to
compel McDonald's to hand over vital 1994 documents regarding the
bacterial content of their hamburgers, the court was told that a
small snag had just come to light.  Richard Rampton QC, for
McDonald's, said that the documents had been held for safekeeping
by Group 4 security but had inadvertently been destroyed by them
in error.

Growth promoters - McDonald's UK company documents state that
"McDonald's will not accept beef from cattle subjected growth
promoters or hormone treatment".  Mr Kenny said it was "not
desirable" to have hormones or antibiotics in the food chain.  He
believed that the concern with antibiotics was that "treatment
resistant strains of bacteria may develop in the human body".  The
use of growth promoting hormones is illegal in the UK, but
McDonald's have acknowledged that they are widely used in the USA
and the company uses meat from animals subjected to growth
promoters.  Mr Kenny also acknowledged 'public concerns' over
pesticide residues in food and stated that McDonald's "would not
want them in the food chain" because of health risks.  The
Defendants referred to a 1987 US National Research Council major
report on pesticide residues which found that beef ranked second
of the list of foods with the greatest estimated 'oncogenic'
(carcinogenic) risk.  Mr Kenny admitted that their lettuce
contained pesticide residues, although he believed the residue
levels were within government 'limits'.

EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS

Low Pay and No Guaranteed Hours - Sid Nicholson, McDonald's UK
Vice President, (who was Head of Personnel from 1984 - 1991,
combining this for most of the time with the job of Head of
Security) admitted that McDonald's set their starting rates for
crew employees for most of the country "consistently either
exactly the same as the minimum rates of pay set by the Wages
Council or just a few pence over them".  He agreed that for crew
aged 21 or over the company "couldn't actually pay any lower wages
without falling foul of the law".  He stated that when the Wages
Council abolished the legal protection of a minimum wage for
under-21s (in 1986) "I was quite content..because it simplified
things".  However, he said "I do not accept that McDonald's crew
are low paid" and he denied that wages in the catering industry
were low compared to other industries.  Robert Beavers (US Senior
Vice-President) admitted that McDonald's US workers started at the
legal minimum wage of $3.35 per hour.  He agreed the company
"would not be allowed to pay less".  "I do not consider it ($3 -
$4 p.h.) to be low pay.  It is a fair wage for the work that is
expected" he stated.  He refused to reveal his own salary.  There
were "no hours guaranteed" and 80% of the jobs were part time.


Pay, Mr Nicholson admitted, "would be one of the things that is
often mentioned" when staff were asked what improvements they
would like at McDonald's, but, he said "you show me any working
man who feels he is getting enough pay"..."I do not feel I am
getting enough pay".  He admitted that in 1993 McDonald's senior
management levels had salaries over 75,000 pounds p.a. plus
benefits and perks.  At that time the starting rate for crew
members outside London was 3 pounds per hour for over 18's and
2.65 pounds per hour for 16 & 17 year olds.  Mr Nicholson said
that these were the basic rates and that crew could increase their
pay rates by passing 'Performance Reviews'.  Company documents
revealed that in order to obtain a 5p per hour rise the crew
member would have to score at least 76%, for a 10p per hour rise
87%, and for a 15p per hour rise 93.5%.  The guideline for
attaining 87% or over was that employee "performance consistently
exceeds job requirements and expectations".

About 80% of crew people are 'part-time', averaging about 20 hours
per week.  Mr Nicholson admitted that employees do not have any
guaranteed hours or pay at McDonald's.  He agreed that managers
have the power, while any crew person is working their scheduled
shift, to compulsorily cut or extend the hours being worked (the
crew handbook states: "On occasions you may be asked to continue
working past your normal finishing time. You will be released as
soon as the need for your service has passed").  Even breaks could
be cut.  In any event, crew are not paid for meal breaks.

McDonald's, Mr Nicholson admitted, has never paid overtime rates,
despite the Wages Council setting minimum overtime rates for all
hours worked over 39 hours in a week.  He said overtime pay was
unnecessary because of company policy setting a maximum of 39
hours a week for all crew.  But the Defendants showed from
disclosed Payroll reports that at least 5% of hourly-paid staff in
London & the South worked over 39 hours each week.  This, Mr
Nicholson claimed, showed it was a 'rare' occurrence.  Payroll
records for one store indicated that 9 out of 53 employees worked
over

78 hours in a fortnight (39 hrs p.w.).  When asked if it would
concern him if 17% of employees were working more than 39 hours a
week, in breach of policy, he said "It would not concern me".  He
also stated "it is only policy".  Mr Beavers (McDonald's US)
agreed that in the US it would be illegal not to pay overtime to
employees working more than 40 hrs p.w.  He said he thought this
was a "fair" law for the employees, but agreed that McDonald's
would only pay overtime if forced to by law.

Mr Beavers admitted that Ray Kroc, McDonald's founder and Chair,
had made a $250,000 donation to the controversial 1972
presidential campaign of Richard Nixon, a donation which was
'perhaps' a subject of investigation during the Watergate
corruption scandal.  The Defendants referred to passages of the
'Behind The Arches' book (written with McDonald's backing and
assistance) which admitted that the donation came around the very
time that McDonald's franchisees were lobbying to prevent an
increase in the minimum wage, and to get legislation (dubbed 'The
McDonald's Bill') passed to be able to pay a sub-minimum wage to
some young workers.

Exploiting Young Workers - Approximately two thirds of McDonald's
crew are under 21, and nearly one third are under 18.  But Mr
Nicholson denied McDonald's "chose to employ a high percentage of
young workers so that they could exploit them for lower wages and
make greater profits".  McDonald's UK has admitted that it was
convicted of 73 offences in relation to the employment of young
people in the early 1980's.  Mr Nicholson said that "since that
time I have no knowledge of any infringements of the regulations".
He was quizzed by the Defendants about the statement of a
forthcoming company witness who admitted that under-18s had worked
illegal hours at Swindon McDonald's, but 'only' on 'one or two'
occasions.  Additionally, time sheets obtained by the Defendants
revealed five breaches of the law relating to the employment of
young people in one week at Orpington in 1987.  Other documents
revealed that as recently as 1993, on average 2-3 under 18's were
showing up on company records as working in excess of 96 hours in
a fortnight (48 hours a week) which until 1990 was illegal, and
was still, according to Mr Nicholson, against company policy.

McDonald's, Mr Beavers accepted "depends for their profits (over
$1 billion p.a.) on the labour of young people."  He agreed the
majority of people working for McDonald's in the USA were under 21
and admitted they positively recruit youth.  He admitted that in
1988/9, Pennsylvania authorities cited 466 violations of child
labour laws at 8 Philadelphia McDonald's stores (run by a
franchisee), but the owner/manager was not sacked.  The Defendants
accused the Corporation of 'double standards' when comparing this
with crew members who can face summary dismissal for a single
'offence' against company rules.  In fact, despite claiming
earlier that higher standards of 'honesty' and 'ethics' applied to
those in the Company's hierarchy, he could not think of a single
example of any officials being sacked for violating Company
policy.

Pressure to Boost Profits - The Defendants showed a documentary
'One Every Mile', filmed with McDonald's permission inside two
London stores, which portrayed the reality of the high-pressure
working conditions for employees.  Mr Nicholson agreed the
conditions shown were 'typical' of high volume stores.  Crew were
filmed complaining about pay, of pay rises being delayed, about
'hours worked being under-recorded' and that the pressure of the
work 'does your brain in'.  The documentary, made for Channel 4,
was never broadcast.  Commenting on the fact that there was a
preponderance in the film of managers with an ex-military
background, the witness said that such people bring a "sense of
discipline" to McDonald's.

Mr Nicholson admitted that store managers were under pressure from
higher up to keep labour costs down.  Company documents revealed
that a former manager in Newcastle (and witness for the
Defendants) had been ordered amongst other things to get his
labour costs down "within targeted labour guidelines" (of between
14-16% of sales) or face dismissal.  Internal company documents
showing profit and loss projections for 1992 revealed that the
company had planned to reduce the overall crew labour costs
nationally as a percentage of turnover (at about 15% of sales)
whilst increasing the management percentage.  Meanwhile, in 1992,
the manager of another Newcastle store was jailed for 6 months for
inducing a crew member to phone through a hoax bomb threat to
nearby Burger King in order to boost sales at McDonald's.

Each year a McDonald's 'Store of the Year' is chosen by the
company because of its "consistently high standards" in all areas,
including personnel matters.  It is used as an example to others.
In 1987, Colchester was chosen.  A statement of the company's own
witness - an Operations Manager at McDonald's with responsibility
for 20 stores - revealed that special clean-ups were ordered at
the Colchester store when senior management were due to visit,
some employees having to work through the night to complete the
clean-up.  Further, breaks were sometimes shortened and hours
could be compulsorily cut or extended.  The manager admitted that
crew sometimes worked up to 50 hours a week (which Mr Nicholson
said indicated the store was under-crewed), or did double shifts
(about which he commented "they would be exhausted").  When
challenged over these practices at their so-called 'exemplary'
store, Mr Nicholson stated that if they were happening in all
McDonald's stores in the country "it would not concern me".

Employee safety - On October 12th 1992, Mark Hopkins, a McDonald's
worker in Manchester, was electrocuted on touching a 'fat
filtering unit' machine in the 'wash-up' area of the store.  A
McDonald's memo from the north west region dated 17/2/92, was
quoted which revealed that "there have been several recent
instances in our restaurants where members of staff have received
severe shocks from faulty items of electrical equipment".
Following an investigation of the death, the Manchester
Environmental Health Department issued a Prohibition Order forcing
McDonald's to install 'Residual Current Devices' on all electrical
equipment in wash-up areas.  In their view, accepted by Mr
Atherton, without such devices there was 'a risk of serious
personal injury'.  The devices were fitted nationally following Mr
Hopkins' death.

Jill Barnes (McDonald's UK Hygiene and Safety Officer) was
challenged over a previously confidential internal report into
Mark Hopkins' death.  It had catalogued a number of company
failures and problems, and had made the damning conclusion:
"Safety is not seen as being important at store level".  In
addition, a confidential Health & Safety Executive report of 1992
made 23 recommendations for improvements.  One of its conclusions
was "The application of McDonald's hustle policy [ie. getting
staff to work at speed] in many restaurants was, in effect,
putting the service of the customer before the safety of
employees".  The Defendants referred to McDonald's Crew Training
Programme which stated "When do you use hustle? (All the time)".
Mr Beavers stated that the 'hustle' policy of fast working
emanated from the US and applied to their (over a million) workers
all over the world.  But he was unaware that the 'hustle' policy
had been lambasted by the UK Health & Safety Executive.

MANAGEMENT MANIPULATION

McDonald's produces a bi-monthly
magazine - 'McNews' - which, Mr Nicholson said, is "targeted at
restaurant crew" "to portray a kind of corporate identity to the
crew".  On their first day, all new crew people are shown an
official McDonald's 'orientation' video to, he said, 'inject' a
'family feeling'.  He denied this was 'brainwashing' and said "If
they do not like it they do not need to stay".  As part of the
performance reviews (needed to obtain a pay rise) crew were marked
on their "attitude" "towards store success" and their "desire to
progress".  Crew people failing to have the right attitude "could
probably be terminated" he stated.

Mr Beavers explained how management are trained to motivate staff
- "We introduced psychology in some of our personnel courses" he
said, (at their so-called Hamburger University).  Asked if their
workers "are taught to identify with the goals of the company" he
replied "hopefully they do,".  They are given an 'orientation' "so
that they understand how their work efforts fit into the big
picture".  'Discipline', he said, is one of their 'basic values'.
But he denied that McDonald's "wish to take advantage of a
vulnerable, inexperienced sector of society" or that what a young
worker is really taught "is to be a cog in a machine, to be
obedient, not to question the idiocy of the job which you are
doing, and to basically be a slave for the Company".

Mr Nicholson accepted that despite working in a fast moving and
hot environment, workers had to get permission to have a drink.
Whilst management can change crew hours of work at will, and the
Crew Handbook lists dozens of examples where management can
direct, restrict or ban employees activity and behaviour (under
threat of disciplinary action and summary dismissal) Mr Nicholson
couldn't, when asked, think of a single right that workers had
except where there was statutory protection.  In the US "no notice
is required" to "terminate" an employee, Mr Beavers said, and the
Company would "reserve the right to change any term or condition
of the employment without prior consultation or agreement".  "They
have no guaranteed employment rights.  They do not have guaranteed
employment or guaranteed conditions of employment" Beavers
stated.

Company figures showed that in December 1989, annualised crew
turnover at McDonald's in both the UK and USA was approx 190%.
During 1986 it reached as high as 241% in the USA.  Mr Beavers
admitted that "consistent and important" reasons given by
McDonald's workers for quitting their jobs included (as revealed
in the Company's Operations Manual):  "poor treatment - lack of
recognition, poor people practices, dissatisfaction with pay, low
and/or infrequent raises", "no job enjoyment or satisfaction" and
"poor working conditions - faulty and missing equipment".   Many
of these were

"the by-products of understaffing".

Anti-Union Practices - Mr Beavers agreed that in the early 1970's
McDonald's employed an official, John Cooke, who had a
responsibility "to keep the Unions out".  The Defendants referred
to a quote by John Cooke in the book, 'Behind The Arches' (written
with McDonald's backing and assistance): "Unions are inimical to
what we stand for and how we operate.  They peddle the line to
their members that the boss will be forevermore against their
interests."  The book also stated that "of the 400 serious
organisation attempts in the early 1970's, none was successful",
and Mr Beavers admitted this was due to 'steps' taken by
McDonald's "to try to prevent trade union organisation...around
that time when it was actually a problem."

Mr Beavers admitted that, in the 1970's, he and company managers
around the USA had used "lie detectors" (half-hour polygraph
tests) on current or potential employees.  The practice only
ceased "when it was obvious that the law was going to be passed
making it illegal".  Prior to this John Cooke had sent a memo to
top executives stating "I think the union was effective in terms
of reaching the public with the information that we do use
polygraph tests in a gestapo type manner" and suggesting stopping
their use.  Mr Beavers admitted that in some cases, refusal to
take such a test would have led to dismissal.  He claimed not to
know about a 1974 San Francisco Labor Board hearing at which
McDonald's workers testified that lie-detectors had been used to
ask about union sympathies, following which the company was
threatened with legal action.

Stan Stein (McDonald's US Senior Vice-President, Head of Personnel
& Labour Relations) was questioned about the company's worldwide
hostility to trade unions (TUs). Mr Stein said that he had worked
for McDonald's since 1974 and during that time none of the
company's restaurants in the USA had been unionised.  Whenever TUs
in any corner of the globe made serious attempts to organise
McDonald's workers, Mr Stein himself seems to have jetted into
town.  The court heard about a number of disputes including:
Mexico 1985 - a union seized and occupied for 3 weeks the first
McDonald's store (which had opened with non-union labour).
McDonald's agreed to recognise a different union, and all
McDonald's stores are still unionised.  Puerto Rico 1970's - up to
1974, McDonald's employees were unionised, but the company was
sold to a new franchisee.  A dispute followed, closing all the
stores and McDonald's pulled out of Puerto Rico.  They reopened in
1980 with non-union labour.  Chicago 1978 - in one store, a
majority of McDonald's workers joined a union.  The company then
took legal action to stop recognition for the union unless they
could get a majority in the 8 stores run by the franchisee.
Detroit 1980 - after workers in a store joined a union, the
company's organised a visit by a top baseball star, staff disco,
and 'McBingo' prior to elections for union representation
Arkansas, USA 1983 - the UFCW union, which was interested in
recruiting McDonald's workers, was involved in a union dispute at
a chicken processing plant supplying McDonald's.  The union
launched a boycott of McDonald's 'McNuggets' and picketed many of
its stores.  Mr Stein spent up to '80%' of a whole year fighting
the union's campaign.  Ireland 1979 - a 7 month strike lead to
recognition of the ITGWU union.  In 1985, two union activists won
a victory at a labour court after claiming victimisation and
unfair dismissal.  Denmark 1980-90 - throughout the 1980's, unions
attempted to negotiate with McDonald's the standard 'collective
agreement' for food service companies.  After protracted legal
disputes and boycotts, McDonald's recognised the union in 1989.
Germany 1979-90 - in 1979, a letter was sent from McDonald's
personnel office with instructions to store managers not to hire
any union sympathisers.  In the 1980's, there were disputes with
the NGG union, and eventually the company signed a union agreement
in 1990.  Philadelphia 1989 - McDonald's stores in Philadelphia
were independently surveyed and accused of having racist
differential wage rates between the inner-city stores (mostly
black workers) and the suburbs (mostly white workers).  Mr Stein
had intervened and believed the campaign to be a front for a union
recruitment effort.  Madrid 1986 - four workers who had called for
union elections were sacked by McDonald's.  The company was forced
to reinstate the workers after the labour court ruled that the
dismissals were illegal.  China 1993 - in Beijing, protest
leaflets were circulated about conditions  Iceland 1993 - when
they opened their first store, McDonald's refused to negotiate
with TUs, but after a strike and boycott threat, the company
conceded.  Canary Islands 1993 - McDonald's were fined 13 million
pesetas for falsely claiming state subsidies for 'staff training'.
Canada 1993/4 - workers in an Ontario store joined a union, but
the company managed to avoid recognition by ensuring victory in
Labour Board sponsored elections.  Mr Stein was also questioned
about other disputes with Trade Unions in France, New Zealand,
Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands.

Mr Nicholson said the company was not anti-union and all staff had
a right to join one.  However, he said that the company was "very,
very much in support of performance related pay.  Those who work
well are paid well.  For that reason we would rather not deal with
Trade Unions."  Under questioning he admitted that any McDonald's
workers interested in union membership "would not be allowed to
collect subscriptions...put up notices...pass out any
leaflets...to organise a meeting for staff to discuss conditions
at the store on the premises"...or "to inform the union about
conditions inside the stores" (which would be deemed 'Gross
Misconduct' and as such a 'summary sackable offence').  In fact,
Mr Nicholson agreed, "they would not be allowed to carry out any
overt union activity on McDonald's premises".

Mr Nicholson appeared confused as to the what the company would do
if a majority of crew demanded union recognition, first stating
"If a majority of the staff of a restaurant had an election and
voted to be represented by a trade union, then they would be
represented by a trade union" but he later agreed that "if every
single member of crew in a particular restaurant joined a union
[McDonald's] would still not negotiate with the union".  However,
he did recognise that "if of course there was a massive national
drive" and a "very large proportion of McDonald's employees joined
a union" and took industrial action, McDonald's "might be left
with no short alternative but to negotiate".

On 3 occasions, in Hackney 1985, East Ham 1986 and Liverpool 1988,
Mr Nicholson was informed by store management that employees were
interested in union representation.  Mr Nicholson said he then
visited the stores accompanied by other management or Security
officials to talk to the crew "to explain our point of view to
them".  He denied that people could have felt intimidated by his
presence or that of management/security.  (He said that he took an
Area Security Manager to Hackney only to help him find a place to
park his car).  He denied that the company's refusal to negotiate
with Trade Unions was because "they would be more effective at
arguing for better wages and conditions than individual workers".
He claimed that company 'rap sessions' (meetings for workers to
give their views to a manager or supervisor) meant there was no
need for unions, and he denied any crew felt 'exploited', 'pushed
around' or felt they got 'low pay', because "no-one has said to me
they do".

Mr Nicholson remembered banning a Union official from leafleting
or talking to staff inside a London store, even during their
breaks, but claimed he had 'no objection' to him leafleting or
recruiting outside - "We are quite used to people outside our
stores giving out leaflets".  He stated "I want to know everything
that happens at a store.  I want to know when members of London
Greenpeace stand outside of a store and distribute literature and
I want to know when they leave".

All quotes are taken directly from the court transcripts.

Campaign Statement:  The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to
generate solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel
Defendants, who are not themselves responsible for Campaign
publicity.  The Campaign is also supportive of, but independent
from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-McDonald's activities
and protests.