verylittlehelps

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

Thanks for the replies,sounds like she is just trying to bully people into saying "yes" then

@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

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.

You can work in retail and not serve customers, look at managers and above, quick to avoid it all or altogether 

Customers are just more forced now through the self serve / SAYS route anyhow so less likelihood of "serving" as per say, just a case of standing authorising from the screens is what most will do to be honest.

Why 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.

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