Click and collect van running

[dfl]

@oldfashionedplayer thanks for that, will have a look at that, The thing is the employee knows idling happens regularly by almost every driver and the note now put up seems to sanction allowing it too, as long as van is "not left", it also appears the notice informs others what is and isnt acceptable which unfortunately was not something the accused was privy to at the time of the "incident" so this employee got an aggressive dressing down partly for idling, has now a written warning which only says improvement required is to "lock the van when leaving it" which seemingly condones or rather admits that idling is acceptable, and bearing in mind the other part of leaving the van "unattended" is arguable as the van was in clear view and also gotten to immediately as the complainant got to it, so in my view not in any danger of the van or goods being damaged or stolen.

[oldfashionedplayer]

yeah its definitely worth challenging, if i can find information on the site im always happy to look, i like rooting for information 

Hopefully an overturn with an appeal and possibly go for the targeted stage would be my plan, since they are happy for others within reason but 1 gets punished no matter what.

[lucgeo]

So the guy is being singled out and disciplined for a common practice that is commonplace amongst your and other stores? This  could be interpreted as..

"selective discrimination"

When, if ever, was the last training signed off by the colleague that covered and fully explained the policies and rules on "idling"?

When was the last updated version printed, and has training been given after this latest printed version?

Why is there a notice now displayed in the department regarding "idling", if it isn't an accepted normal daily routine practised by most?

Both the notice and the handbook are extremely vague regarding "idling" with imprecise wording of the rules.

These are some of the points and questions I'd be raising, ever so courteously