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 

[dfl]

@lucgeo as far as i can see it is selective discrimination, employee selected by the complainant and then followed up by the store and ignoring employees points about the attendance status of the van and the unclear definition of same in employers handbooks and/or training, now after horse has bolted employer is trying to 'clarify' a little too late. The notice in dept in my view is an admission that it goes on pretty much as the norm

[dfl]

Does anyone here know the name of tesco delivery vans insurance company? Thanks, i'd like to check their definition of unattended

[JJH]

I believe it's still sopp & sopp

[dfl]

Is sopp & sopp not just the repairers as opposed to the actual underwriter for the van insurance

[JJH]

Fairly sure it's sopp & sopp, seen them handling non dotcom related claims in the past

[dfl]

Appeal is now in

[dfl]

How long does the company have to meet with employee do discuss the appeal, is there a time limit after which the appeal would automatically be won if no meeting gets held ?

[dfl]

Is it possible that this employees disciplinary which was sparked by a couple of issues as previous posts but the disciplinary is only for not "attending" the van, could any appeal investigation then choose to keep the disciplinary as is BUT base it on the idling instead, or is that not something that can be done or is allowed

[oldfashionedplayer]

you can read it in the disciplinary policy bit:

"An impartial Tesco manager trained to an appropriate level with the authority to make such decisions will be instructed to meet with you, and hear your appeal within a reasonable time frame and usually within 14 days for anything up to a final written warning (28 days for a demotion or dismissal)."

colleagues have 14 days too for appeal but colleagues have to explain why appeal was late if past that.

says they go through it so maybe? they could keep it based on the leaving it unattended as that's policy to not do but at the same time if the reason for the appeal is the colleague being essentially victimised, it could spark a removal to avoid further issues down the line and instead re-training for said colleague and other colleagues be a way forward...

that'd be how i'd look at it, avoid the situation where its only 1 colleague being targeted, turn it into a training and learning experience for all drivers / department, so that if there are any others doing it, it then cuts that out of the equation and the colleague that is being targeted then doesn't have any further grounds later to stand on if they lost their job over it to be honest.

[dfl]

@oldfashionedplayer, thanks, interesting the 14 days bit as the employees reply to their appeal says meet within 28 days, if the policy is actually 14 days and tesco take longer than that i'd hope this would then be out of process and the employee would then have won the appeal. Also the employee has already pointed out at the meetings so far that the van wasnt "unattended" (due to tescos loose definition) and feels that the whole episode should be seen as a training issue, its not the employees fault that the training isnt clear on what is to be deemed "unattended".

Employee also considering acas then e.t. complaint which i think is fair as they do seem to have been made an example of so far, time scales for that are a bit tight.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks again for your input and view here, much appreciated

[oldfashionedplayer]

no worries always happy to help, the 14 days says "Usually" so loose there too and i'm guessing gives the 28 days.

That impartial one might say the same in the sense of that the warning is justified based on the idling whether the colleague knows the training or not because tesco's tries to cover themselves with the "if your not sure, ask, ask your manager or raise a colleague help ticket" - type of thing.

i'd still go the route of acas anyhow though to find out more and see whether targeting is a factor to be raised anyhow as a cause at the least.

[lucgeo]

@dfl

Ok I'm confused now? Was the colleague disciplined on having the van "idling" or leaving it "unattended"?

From what I've understood the whole issue was having the van "idling" whilst he was in the immediate vicinity and in sight at all times.

"Unattended" would suggest he left it unsupervised and unattended away from his immediate vicinity?

I would certainly question the policy definition of unattended?, as it sounds like they are using a broad scoping of a policy to cover the reason for the disciplinary.

If there is no specific policy or training under the heading "idling", and then notices have been posted on walls regarding "idling" it is in retrospect...the colleague should have been given a training update along with all the other colleagues in the department, not made an example of, which is what this colleague's disciplinary was!

[lucgeo]

The 14 days rule should apply...if there is going to longer time needed by either the colleague or manager, this time extension should be discussed and agreed by both parties, and a later date agreed.

If it isn't done in the agreed timescale, then it is out of policy.

[dfl]

@lucgeo the initial investigation was for idling and leaving unattended, the disciplinary letter however states the reason for disciplinary as "leaving van unattended and idling"

However the disciplinary letter also states improvement required as "if leaving the van then ensure van switched off and locked", I've noted that they use the word "leaving" as an substitute for "unattended" since this incident which differs from handbook or training.

My presumption is that the disciplinary issued letter only states 1 improvement required as they know virtually all the drivers have been idling vans up until this incident (due to one plug socket for 2 vans and also for heating to keep van warm for driver on cold days)
I hope this clarifies what your asking.

The return correspondence since appeal letter says a meeting will be held normally 28 days which i think is a mistake on their part, im hoping as me and employee have not agreed to this that the process will be out of time after 14 tho.

Thanks again

[dfl]

@oldfashionedplayer i would probably say i didnt ask as wasnt unsure what unattended means as i have always considered that to be reasonable to expect unattended to mean it wasnt in my sight and that i wouldnt get to it before any potential thief, but in the circumstances that day the employee could get to it in time so therefore it wasnt in my view unattended