This case study is based on an American outlet that has been shifted to UK, named as McDonald’s.

McDonald’s core value is they place the customers experience at the core of all they do, they believe
that are doing work in a more ethical way, make profits and also strive continually to improve.
McDonald's puts profit ahead of its employees. One worker described having to pour hot grease into
trash-bag lined buckets without wearing any gloves - all while the grease disposal equipment lay
inoperable for six months. And, although McDonald's corporate offices undertake extensive inspections
of franchisees' business operations on a regular basis, they pay little attention to health and safety
measures in those same franchises. According to a recent research conducted by the National Council
for Occupational Safety and Health, 79% of fast-food employees in the United States had been burnt in
the last year. These burns are often fully avoidable, since they are caused by factors like as
understaffing, insufficient safety equipment, and inadequate training. McDonald's employees in 19 cities
have submitted health and safety complaints, exposing the fast-food giant's significant inability to
implement even basic safety precautions for its employees.

RETALIATORY DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS:

Employees are totally free to join a union if they wish. This is in accordance with U.K. employment
regulations which we follow to the letter. However, we don't currently work with any specific trade union
because we have a number of internal methods that we use to speak to our employees all the time.
Communication is everything, and we believe in honest and open dialogue between employees and the
company. We work with employees and franchisees to make sure this happens both in restaurants and
within our wider business. Many employees who were visibly supportive of the union organizing
campaign (including some dismissed workers) had clean disciplinary records, or a few minor write-ups,
until they were recognized as union sympathizers. After being recognized as in favor of unionization,
however, supervisors wrote them up repeatedly for minor, even made-up, violations and/or items for
which other employees who did not endorse the union were not written up

All employees said that they saw the disciplinary actions as punishment for their support for union
organizing. They saw employees who supported the union being reprimanded considerably harsher than
those who did not, and they detailed to ILRF receiving nasty anti-union messaging on paid time, in fliers,
and directly from management. As a result, they saw the disciplinary measures as part of a concerted anti-
union strategy. Three of the seventeen participants in the focus group had been dismissed, four had been
suspended, and two had family members who had been fired. Thirteen employees said that they had
directly seen a non-union employee do the identical behavior for which they had been reprimanded and
not face disciplinary action.

WORKERS STORY: