verylittlehelps

especially cause they kept their 3 course meals at their canteen, with their salmon dishes etc. if they wanted morale spend the money.. company just goes more and more downhill trying to leech off of the stuff they give staff

Given the mess we have to deal with in store every morning because the DC staff are too lazy or stupid to stack cages properly, the Depot CHIMpS* are lucky they get paid, never mind fed.

*CHIMpS: Completely Hopeless In Most Situations.

@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

Quote from: penguin on 01-05-24, 05:01PMSo much has fallen by the wayside over the years, for example rumble, strict standards of dress (although I have no issue with that one, im all for self expression) stock control being done correctly, general store standards, proper training, decent canteens and hardly a word said by most of the older staff in the stores I worked at and I joined back in 05 so witnessed the decline myself, yet the second anyone dared to ask a question around the checkout rule and it was like a nuke going off in the store such were the arguments that would follow.

The comments made about the closure of staff canteens, at least in my store, would have made a Royal Marine blush. I will never forgive the penny-pinching, lazy tossers at head orifice for that.

Quote from: londoner83 on 01-05-24, 10:25PMWhy work in retail if you won't serve customers?

End of the day regardless of how amazing you fill your department, if customers can't get thru the tills your efforts are in vain.

Plenty of people, "work" in retail and never serve customers. These employees are called, "managers". 

And if your department isn't filled properly, the customers won't be able to find what they want to buy in the first place.

@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

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

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!

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.

Sounds about right, that's what managers do