News:

Welcome to V.L.H

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

28-03-24, 08:38AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,115
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 248
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 3
Guests: 248
Total: 251

Dotcom test purchase disciplinary

Started by dfl, 25-06-21, 07:02AM

Previous topic - Next topic

dfl


Which id be very surprised if someone doesnt take this sort of stuff up with acas or an e.t.
DFL

jago123

It's a test purchase for a reason. 
Colleagues should be using their common sense when it comes to this and if any doubts, always ask.
As the customer /test purchaser was over 18, no criminal offence has been committed however, it's a breach of internal policy.  A dismissal sanction would be too severe, unless this has happened previously.  I would say First written warning.
Take USDAW if a member - you pay them for this service.
To your defence you can say that you were ascertain that the customer was over 18 and go into detail why..
good luck!

gomezz

The point is that if the colleague has no doubts about their assessed age of the customer, what then?
"The progress of the kart is more important than its direction"

dfl

#28
If the drivers assessment led to conclusion that the purchaser wasn't under 25 then I'm sorry its still a case of policy has been followed and there was no need to request id.  Its always the case that if that's the drivers opinion then surely up to Tesco to then give the reasons why they didn't look to be 25 (but of course they could make this up and form a biased opinion as they will know the persons age as they arranged the test).  Only other alternative I see is to provide more training to help opinions become more accurate.  This in no way should lead to any disciplinary.
DFL

londoner83

Agree with the above. If the driver held a reasonable belief that the customer was over 25 and can provide sound reasons why they thought so, I don't feel disciplinary action would be appropriate. Some people do genuinely look older than they actually are.

If the case ever got to a Employment Court, Tesco would need to show that such a belief was unreasonable and that you have been trained to be able to spot the difference between a 26 year old and when someone is for example 23.  The same 4 photos on the last 5 Legal E-Learning training courses are unlikely to cut it.

penguin

People still seem to be missing an important point here, where is the evidence that someone has not followed think 25, is there any cctv or witness proof, unlikely as its a home delivery test purchase, what customer was it, cant be told due to GDPR, how can we be sure that the events as described by the test purchaser are accurate, we have one persons word being used to put someone on a final written, when the person who has been issued the final cant see any of the proof against them, challenge the person making the accusation or even know when the offence happened to put forward a defence.

There is so much wrong with this that it is actually hard to know where to start, to put it another way if you walked into store tomorrow morning and were invited to a meeting, in that meeting you were told, last week you upset a customer, we will not tell you the customers details, what the customer says you did, or when exactly it happened,  we are just taking the customers word and taking it to a misconduct meeting would you accept this, the only difference between my example and the failed test purchase is the type of offence the staff member is accused off.

Do not let anyone tell you there is not a decent job and life beyond Tesco.

Rhinodentist

The 'Think 25' training is sketchy at best!

dfl

Probably deliberately sketchy to catch drivers out and line them up for disciplinaries
DFL

whatajoke2019

I wouldn't be surprised; when we have the Legal training every year you just know it's going to be the same four faces you need to guess the ages of  ???

dfl

#34
Is there actually any mitigating circumstances under which this would not lead to a disciplinary ? If there isn't then surely that means disciplinary is always the default action which goes against policy as Tesco's mind isn't meant to be decided before any hearings/investigations, it's meant to come after the hearing
DFL

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk