News:

Welcome to V.L.H

Main Menu
Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

28-03-24, 05:10PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,116
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 322
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 4
Guests: 308
Total: 312

Food Stock Managers

Started by beentheredoneit, 01-10-19, 08:04PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mildew

That was never really in doubt Me, it's how they have handled it so far and what they do next that's the issue. They should not have mentioned a formal process if they don't deliver on it.

streaker

Hi, any supposedly , "stock and admin managers" out there, who are opposed to the combination of all into one role in large extra stores.
Feels like a big challenge,  and seems to being slipped in without any consultation or discussion with people.

Would like to know others feeling and experiences so far.

Morris999

When they have combined front end departments in the past and given a colleague amount for separate managers, they always worked it out at say for arguments sake over 15 equivalent full time colleagues.
So if the heat map says you need over 450 hours then you will get the extra manager.
At the time they worked full time as anything over 30 hours.

In a store I worked in previously they combined CSD, PFS, Cash office and trollies With checkouts!
as there wasn't enough hours on heatmap for CSD, PFS, C/O and trollies to make the requirements for the required fulltime positions then no services manager!
You can imagine how happy the Checkout manager was with this soft structure!

This type of soft structure has been happening for over a decade, it isn't going to go away and while I'm not saying just let it go, just don't be surprised if further down the line the outcome doesn't go your way.
I've seen managers refuse to accept other positions in stores, whether it be their current one or one closer to their home address and have their contract terminated.
Remember whether you like it or not Team manager roles are basically the same for the most part regardless of which department you manage.

streaker

All that being said, surely there is a case of terms and conditions being changed.
My contract currently sits as stock manager,  and have no intension of signing a new one, to take on a bigger role.
Your comments are valid, but surely it is a breach of Tc's.

Mildew

I have over twenty years service. No vacancies in my store, I don't drive and have actually had assurances I won't have to travel as it would impact me financially. Good luck sacking me. It won't happen.

Mildew

Just to add this isn't soft structure, I've been put at pains to know that. It is Annual Review where a six month time window was stated with the likelihood of a formal process coming into play.

streaker

Hi Mildred, similar stance, but a significant number of years service, and adamant not adopting new additional role.  Good luck. Keep posting

streaker

Sorry mildrew, bad spelling. Apologies

Mildew

Mildred at weekends 😂

Me2015

It's great to see stock managers still out there who have refused to move role.  I understand the reasons behind this reorganisation and fully agree with the need to reduce headcount which in turn saves £££.  Over the years, stock control has been so heavily centralised with newer, simpler ways of working for stores, makes total sense, as there needs to be a cost saving with each new project rolled out.

The issue I have is, the 6 month 'wait and see' game they seem to be playing!  I am unable to plan for anything right now, my life, and that if my family has been put on hold, and for that I'm resentful.  This company have messed about with me, and my family, for too long.  The stated 6 month timeframe must be adhered to, so we can get on with our lives, further delays or non committal  will be viewed very negatively, my mindset has changed, my mental health and well-being is being ripped apart by this uncertainty!

I'm fully hoping there is a 'transparent' way forward for this

Mildew

Indeed Me.  I think our treatment is scandalous considering they preach about mental well-being. Hence why I went ahead with a grievance and also contacted Dave Lewis's account handlers to express my deep concerns and their need to treat us fairly at the end of the six months. Life has indeed been put on hold .

Teddybonkers

They don't care.  To management, we're not people - just numbers waiting to be culled from the payroll. Grievance this, grievance that - it doesn't matter to them. This company will do anything to save payroll - leave shelves, checkouts & shop floor empty, but  still expect the work to magically get done. Whether you're on the shop floor or in management, work like a donkey or take the p**s,  we're all expendable. Tesco want everything done on a shoestring, and its only going to get worse. 

NightAndDay

#262
Is there a legal definition of "Soft Structure Change" It sounds like a Tesco Mickey Mouse Management buzzword to me. They define it so that because the role still exists in the wider business it's a soft structure change even though the removal of the role at an instore level is the black and white definition of redundancy.

This "Soft Structure Change" malarky sounds like an attempt at hoodwinking their staff out of redundancy by getting them to buy into this psuedo-legal management mumbo jumbo.

If they got rid of the ca role, bit it still exists in the wider business, they would legally be entitled to redundancy, otherwise they can keep the person in the position somewhere in the business and just "soft structure change" everyone out without a payout.

NightAndDay

#263
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/defining-redundancy/

If other aspects if necessary work are added to the existing responsibilities of a FSC then it's to be classed as a different role it's extremely difficult for an employer to remove a role without it coming under as a redundancy situation.

Mildew

Absolutely. They are keeping this as grey and vague as possible and dressing it up, saying it's for our benefit this is happening. A total crock and they know it.

Me2015

What kind of reply did you get back when you sent email to Dave Lewis office?

They can make changes NightandDay, but as we all would think, in a normal situation, an offer to accept new role is offered or redundancy, not this namby pamby Soft Structure BS!

Mildew

It was so badly written it looks like a six year old wrote it. I'll be taking it further so can't really expand.

Me2015

Good luck with it then.  I will be following suit in 2 weeks.  The countdown has began for us, there needs to be an appropriate resolution to this!

Mildew

Totally. Why be passive?

NightAndDay

#269
They can make changes, but legally speaking they have to be insignificant changes, there's very little wiggle room, merging roles into one won't be seen as an insignificant change from a legal perspective. It would be classed as a material change. You can look up "Soft Structure Change redundancy" on google in the context of redundancy, you'd see Tesco is the only one using the fabricated term. I'd be so bold as to suggest that if someone went to Leigh Days or some other employment solicitors about this, there'd be a very strong case against Tesco not offering redundancy for what is clearly a redundancy situation.

Mildew

Strangely they no longer call it soft structure. They've rebadged it under Annual Review .

NightAndDay

Most likely to another nonsense fabricated term to make it appear that they're acting under the remit of the law, as long as you don't let yourself be fooled or coerced out of your role without redundancy or at most the legal definition of "reasonable" alternative then they'll give you what you're legally obliged to sooner or later.

Mildew

That's my stance Night.

mike360

It's always been called Annual Review

Soft Structure is just another name used by some SDs

Mildew

Strange how they went out of the way to differentiate between the two with me.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk