Just had a guy speaking to my colleague and point out that they were breaking the law with having
A click and collect van running whilst working on click and collect, the van was idling which was to try and get some heat in it as it was cold for the employee, they said to me they did this and that most of the drivers do and this has been largely the case since the vans no longer have small diesel heaters in them, the employee was getting read the riot act about the van running being illegal, using fuel, and being unattended, employee did point out to me that when the guy walked toward the van the employee immediately politely challenged what he was after.
He was quite threatening towards the employee using terms such as gross misconduct, asking where the keys were (employee though they were still in van in heat of moment but checked when guy left, they were remote fobs and employee had them in their pocket)
Is the employee likely to be sacked ?
The legality is that under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 Section 107 it is unlawful to leave a vehicle unattended on a public road whilst the engine is running. The two key aspects to consider are what constitutes unattended and what's a public road. Contrary to what you may logically think, a supermarket car park can be considered a public road in that the road elements are publicly accessible. The issue of being in attendance is a bit thorny because the strictest interpretation is that a licensed driver must be in the driving seat, but the wording of the regulations does not explicitly state that and so it can be possible to argue the point if the driver was in close proximity; it is worth noting however that a driver exiting a running vehicle is an instant fail on a driving test. Plod normally treat it as a case of giving advice unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, in which case it's a Fixed Penalty Notice & no points.
It's unlikely to result in a sacking assuming a complaint is even put in. Most likely outcome is a let's talk.
I spoke to said employee again and they said when the guy asked where is the keys they had no intention of telling the guy where they were as at that point there was no clue of if he was a tesco employee or a member of the public although from the description i was given it would seem likely as the guy was asking about why it wasnt plugged in, how many pickups left and several other questions that i suspect would only come from someone with tesco knowledge, but quite right saying where the keys were could have in worst case been someone wanting keys to steal the van for all the employee knew, dont think this is likely myself tho
Is there anyone on here that knows where it could be written that this is gross misconduct ? I've looked and cant find anything
Quote from: dfl on 09-04-24, 02:29PMIs there anyone on here that knows where it could be written that this is gross misconduct ? I've looked and cant find anything
It wouldn't be anything as the van is being used for click & collect. All your colleague had to say was "have an issue contact Tesco" or "The van has a fitted run lock to allow for the engine to run without the key for safe storage of temperature controlled goods" Not all click and collect vans have generators or run locks fitted, so the engine is just left to run. Tell your colleague not worry about it, and if there is any grieve from it, tell them to tell there manager they wont be doing the role in cold weather if we are not allowed to keep warm.
This feeling the need to explain ourselves to other people who have f*** all business knowing needs to be knocked on the head. Bit like a women who approached me years ago questing why I was parked in her street... none your business Karen, jog on. Ohhh her response was "Im a Tesco Customer I have the right to know".... nah ya dont feck off.
It appears it was actually a tesco employed person who witnessed and bollocked this person for idling the van (driving safety officer I've been informed), the employee who idled the van wasnt in it at the time but was only 10 feet away with the van in plain sight and being watched, i do know for a fact tho that in that store most of the drivers idle the van for heat, not always tho to be fair, i couldnt say if they get out of the van at any point, in fact i have also heard them being told by management not to switch one van off recently as the battery/alternator wasnt working properly in it.
Also noted the legislation and a comment in here infers that not being in the driving seat does not necessarily mean the van was unnattended.
Also idling only becomes an offence if an authorised person (police for example) request the driver to cut the engine and they then refuse to do so
Any further comments i can pass on would be welcome, the employee is worried sick and i have no idea what to tell them
@dfl...is there anything in the training that covers engine idling?
If there is and it specifically states it is against policy, then it's a misconduct issue, but only if the colleague has signed off on that training, and even then a first time offence so should be a retraining requirement.
The fact it's regular practice amongst all the drivers and the vans are not heating to the acceptable working temperature, should all be brought in as mitigating circumstances.
If there is no mention or guidance on idling, then there's no case to answer.
It may well be that it's new road vehicles Vehicle idling is an offence against the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, but if this hasn't been highlighted in the training, they can't expect a driver to be clued up on every regulation in force. Any more than anybody who drives.
Hell I'd even throw in that this jumped up jobs worth gave the impression the store is operating below standards...if nothing else it'll get the store managers back up and throw it out just to prove a point! ;)
@lucgeo I've not been able to find anything including a handbook, i may not be searching properly, i can say since this happened i havent heard that the employee has yet been pulled up by manager or store manager, i did on the employees behalf check out click and collect over last couple of days since it happened and in both occasions i checked the van was idling with other employees on duty at it, so basically gathering evidence, i think from gathering this info i can easily suggest to the employee if they get any further action to let management know they have proof its still happening since this event that idling has occurred without any conversation being had with the other employees that are guilty of same, i wont give names tho and will not be giving any times and dates, thats up to tesco management to make sure they look at it in order to treat all employees the same
Thanks you for the helpful reply
Quote from: dfl on 09-04-24, 03:14PMIt appears it was actually a tesco employed person who witnessed and bollocked this person for idling the van (driving safety officer I've been informed), the employee who idled the van wasnt in it at the time but was only 10 feet away with the van in plain sight and being watched, i do know for a fact tho that in that store most of the drivers idle the van for heat, not always tho to be fair, i couldnt say if they get out of the van at any point, in fact i have also heard them being told by management not to switch one van off recently as the battery/alternator wasnt working properly in it.
Also noted the legislation and a comment in here infers that not being in the driving seat does not necessarily mean the van was unnattended.
Also idling only becomes an offence if an authorised person (police for example) request the driver to cut the engine and they then refuse to do so
Any further comments i can pass on would be welcome, the employee is worried sick and i have no idea what to tell them
Driving safety officer? No such job exists
Quote from: ImBackBaby on 10-04-24, 04:34PMQuote from: dfl on 09-04-24, 03:14PMIt appears it was actually a tesco employed person who witnessed and bollocked this person for idling the van (driving safety officer I've been informed), the employee who idled the van wasnt in it at the time but was only 10 feet away with the van in plain sight and being watched, i do know for a fact tho that in that store most of the drivers idle the van for heat, not always tho to be fair, i couldnt say if they get out of the van at any point, in fact i have also heard them being told by management not to switch one van off recently as the battery/alternator wasnt working properly in it.
Also noted the legislation and a comment in here infers that not being in the driving seat does not necessarily mean the van was unnattended.
Also idling only becomes an offence if an authorised person (police for example) request the driver to cut the engine and they then refuse to do so
Any further comments i can pass on would be welcome, the employee is worried sick and i have no idea what to tell them
Driving safety officer? No such job exists
Thats what i was told when i made enquiries, apparently was in for some other issue that happened months ago with a van accident
Update :- investigation letter issued
Crazy this is happening,the drivers always leave the vans running in our store,usually with music blaring out as well,whilst they wander off to get more trays to load from inside the store
And at our store i know this happens all the time too, i mean idling, could be gleaned from lightfoot for all the other occurences, also as i work there too I've seen 2 vans with loads on at the click and collect station but only one plug point, the only way to have both running to keep stock at temp is to have 1 plugged in and the other running, so surely by definition this is company encouraged idling
Would it be the right approach when the employee goes to the investigation that the companies side of the story should be laid bare before the employee does same ?
Yes the colleague should be made aware of the reason for the investigation prior to the meeting to discuss and read their case with their representative, usually 15 mins is considered appropriate, but that would depend on the complexity of the investigation.
Is the colleague a union member?
@lucgeo no the collegue isnt a member, I've been trying to help as best i can, it would seem tho that a van not attended as per handbook and relevant laws does not mean driver has to be in the cab, consensus seems to be that if van is in direct line of sight and not to far away that any attempt on it or its contents could be challenged swiftly, I've been assured that the position in which this employee was outside of the van they could actually see both click and collect vans at the area (driver was using the second one to fill with empty trays to return into store), from what I've seen being in the cab would have actually made it harder to see both. Also idling is done at this store (at least till now anyway) on a regular basis, i actually checked 3 seperate days after this and did indeed see van idling on 2 of those occasions. Also employee is taking another driver with him to the investigation who is aware of the idling that has been pretty much the normal custom and practice on most days
Ok as it's an investigation this should be the initial stage where the management case of misconduct is put forward. The colleague should be presented with the allegations before the meeting so he can prepare his defence.
There will be a manager taking the meeting and a note taker, the note taker is there to take notes only, not to ask question or have any verbal input into the investigation...if this is breached the colleague can object and have his objections noted. If it continues he can adjourn the meeting and raise a grievance.
As he is not a union member, he can have a trusted colleague (such as yourself) as his "chosen representative". Now the manager will say that his chosen representative is there to witness and take notes but is not permitted to speak in the meeting...this is incorrect.
His chosen representative has the same rights as a union rep as they are there in the capacity as a chosen representative, so they can ask questions but cannot answer questions directed to the colleague or speak instead of the colleague unless explicitly asked to by the colleague to speak on his behalf beforehand.
His chosen representative is to be afforded the same respect and courtesy as a member of equal standing to the manager as that afforded to a union rep.
During this investigation the colleague can make clear that the idling of vans is a normal practice amongst the drivers, and he has not been made aware at any time prior to this investigation of the contrary.
He can produce the names of all the other drivers and colleagues in his department who are aware of this practice or operate with their vans idling, the reasons why and the challenges the drivers face which requires the practice of idling.
This should just be the first stage of the investigation, the manager then needs to adjourn to investigate further and speak to the other drivers to obtain their statements.
At the end of the meeting the note taker and manager will sign and date as adjourned, the colleague and representative will sign at the bottom only AFTER they have read the notes, raised any issue to irregularities in the notes, then sign the bottom ensuring that any space between the last paragraph and signature has a snake like line through to assure no extra words can be added at a later date.
@lucgeo not so sure id expect the employee would name every driver who does it, im more likely to suggest that they instead tell management to cross check their sds use with lightfoot if that makes sense, if it was me i would feel bad about such naming and shaming and the info about who does it shouldnt be hard for management to obtain unless of course they want to sweep these facts under the carpet
It may just start off informally as an investigation with no notes taken just to ascertain the facts...but rule of thumb is if there's 2 of them then it's 2 of you!
He doesn't have to name the others, but can say it's normal practice, and then the manager needs to question other employees as to whether or not it is. Only a foolish manager would put in writing that they have found no evidence of others operating the same, when it's blatantly obvious it is and can be shown to be.
If he looks at citizens advice website 'Who can accompany you to a disciplinary meeting',this will show his rights.
@lucgeo the employees invitation states there will be a notetaker, we will see as im happy to go into it with them. Thanks for the heads up
Well result is that it would appear that employees manager cant find any rules that have been broken but is still taking it to disciplinary hearing with store manager, how can this be right, anyone else think of a way to stop it in its tracks, personally my view is employees manager has been told there is to be disciplinary action irrespective of evidence and pressure to do so is coming from the (driver trainer it now appears is the original Complainer), wonder if acas would be interested in this or even if its a case for constructive dismissal
on the tesco help one rather than colleague, it says lightfoot records Idling, and also stores get a report on costs and Idling is in it, so if vans idle for more than 5 minutes it records it, and stores are marked on Green/amber/red and told to look into it... so that may be something to raise if its everyone...
as for the unattended it does say too on it of:
Any incidents where the keys are left in an unattended van will be treated as Gross Misconduct and could result in your dismissal. Remember to keep your vehicle keys with you at all times. Having a van in the hands of the wrong person could pose a real safety risk.
Keys were not in the van the employee had them on their person, the idling question never really got brought much up as i think (in fact i know) as the manager admitted it happens regularly on that job by most drivers, and me and the employee had it put in the notes, but what the manager wasnt prepared to do was accept that no rules as per the drivers handbook for "unattended" vehicles had been breached but proceeded to then further pass it to the store manager for potential disciplinary, how this can happen with no evidence of a rule breach is beyond me
yeah i dont get it either, may be a good case for an appeal perhaps if something does happen
@oldfashionedplayer yes i agree, after the meeting the manager off record did say half of him thinks this shouldnt even be getting done, that he would be happy it coming back as no action, but he'd rather leave the decision on that to the store manager so that if the store manager agrees then its basically 2 fingers to the driving trainer who made complaint in the first place, makes it seem to me the employees manager is just too scared for some reason to grow a pair, go against the complainers wishes and dismiss it himself, and/or dish out unwarranted disciplinary to the employee, its an odd one, is there anyone else who has an idea of what could be going on eg :- driver trainer pushing for disciplinary just because he was unhappy that employee wasnt in the van even tho its been shown that unattended doesnt mean in the van and thats all the handbook says, basically driver trainer overbearing employees manager and on an ego trip.
As a side note i will be very surprised if the wording of unattended doesnt get rapidly changed in next revision of the tesco drivers handbook
I think the wording does need looking at as it does not seem to take into account push button start with the keys still in the driver's pocket.
Ok I'm confused now...
Why is it going straight to the store manager, where's his right to appeal?
Has any investigation taken place with other colleagues in the department or statements taken?
What is the disciplinary action stated...if it's a disciplinary stage, then the manager passes it in the meeting, then the right of appeal process begins and it goes to the store manager to be heard or overthrown, but this should not be all on the same day, as the colleague requires time to gather notes to present his case for appeal.
If its gross misconduct then the store manager or senior team only, have the right to dismiss, but even then a suspension would have been set in place whilst all investigations conducted, and then the colleague would receive an invitation back into the store for the outcome of the investigation.
The notes you've taken and the dept manager admitting there's no case to answer as he hasn't knowingly broken any rules, all hold in your favour.
Is it a push start button ignition? This also goes in his favour as the van cannot be taken if the colleague has the keys on his person due to if the van or colleague moves out of range then the engine cuts out anyway!
If he receives any disciplinary when other colleagues are known to practice this as the norm, such as the department manager states, then he is a victim of selective discrimination and suffering a detriment.
Contact ACAS for advice on this.
@lucgeo i will try and answer as clearly as i can, the investigation was done yesterday, manager doing it seemed very conflicted as if he didnt want to or wasnt sure how to progress, both me and employee made it clear we were puzzled why it would go anywhere near a disciplinary hearing with the store manager and we both made this clear if the employee hadnt broken any rules, we did this clearly and concisely, the manager was trying to describe scenarios where the employees actions could have been more risky to which we disagreed by pointing out that the employees actions were not outwith the definition within the drivers handbook regarding "unattended" and that those proposed scenarious were purely hypothetical, response from manager was I've made my decision and im taking it to a disciplinary hearing (this is whats on for monday)
Disciplinary hearing is set for monday, me again going in with the employee.
The van clearly was running, push start button yes. Keys within employees pocket.
If i understand correctly are you saying that after the investigation stage yesterday it should be then appealed before allowed to go anywhere near a disciplinary hearing, if so then it would appear to me this is being breached.
No other staff to my knowledge has been asked anything else as only thing that would be needed for i suspect is to ask if they idle vans as well, im sure management are already aware they would be able to deny it does as most of the drivers do it.
An appeal wouldn't happen until after the disciplinary. Ie. If issued a warning then that'd be the point of appeal.
Of course if the colleague has an issue with the whole process then a grievance should be raised.
Having read through the thread it seems baffling it's got anywhere near an investigation. I'd imagine idling vans is common place(as at most stores) and id say a blanket approach to all drivers via a let's talk would be appropriate and possibly some re-training.
@jjh the original complainee was raising the issue initially on a few things, idling the van, leaving it "unattended" which is a vague term in the drivers handbook and as described in the previous posts, shutters being open (again common practice) from whats went on so far the idling is being sidelined at least in the investigation far, the complainee tho was extremely vocal to the point of abusive about stating its wasting fuel blah blah blah, wouldnt be surprised if idling gets raised again at the disciplinary but think its very easy to defend because its common practice, the unattended may be the main issue that will be raised again tho but as that is a kind of loose term and from what I've found can be acceptable and not classed as unattended if the driver is in clear line of sight and able to get to the vehicle before anyone approaching could damage or thieve the vehicle or its contents.
The lets talk to all makes perfect sense to me too but id suspect most drivers would be saying then how do we keep warm in vans when its cold ! And the company would then have to supply a solution to that.
How does the cost of "wasting fuel" compare with the cost of wasting a load of chilled and frozen that has exceed the cold chain rules?
@gomezz the van was running for cab heat, if not it could have been plugged in, on regular occasions there is 2 vans out and only 1 plug socket so one would need to idle and one plugged in under those circumstances
@dfl...no the appeal should be against any disciplinary, as beforehand no warning of any kind has been given.
to be honest, this stinks to high heaven. I think the store is knee jerking to an outside influence here. :-X
Play the game...keep your notes, contact ACAS.
Im positive the store is being pushed into this without a doubt and straight from the driver trainer, both me and the employee think so as well
I think even protector line wouldnt be a bad bet either, anyone know their number or email
Freephone: 0800 048 8958
Web: protectorline.ourtesco.com
@oldfashionedplayer Thanks
I would suggest you hold fire for a decision from the meeting today with the store manager, if the guy didn't receive a warning from the investigation last week, and is today in a meeting with the store manager who will decide, then it's contravening the disciplinary process!
If you check with policies for people on the website it should show the current disciplinary processes and appealing a disciplinary decision.
A colleague can appeal any warning given which will then go to the senior or store manager to decide whether to overrule or not. A given warning can't be increased on appeal.
If the store manager gives a warning today then your colleague can appeal, and have it thrown out due to being given out of policy and due process.
If a warning is issued, then he should be advised of his right to appeal the decision, an innocent "yes please" will suffice ;)
His appeal will then have to go out of store and the appeal request to the area PP to process as has to be heard by another store manager of equal or higher status.
@lucgeo so is it definitely the case that any investigation should result in either action or no action at that same investigation and they cannot then pass it on to store manager for disciplinary like they have done, as if thats the case i will raise this first thing we go in. The employees manager when asked at the investigation as to why he wasnt disciplining said it had to be carried out by different staff member to the initial investigating manager (it was the employees manager).
Any quote in the policy that would show its out of process here ?
@lucgeo sorry to be a pain, personally I've never been able to test whether these vans do indeed cut out if keys arent in them as per one of your previous replies, if they go out of range, is there somewhere youve seen this in the vans spec, and tesco document, or had drivers tell you they do.
Or indeed has anyone else found this, it may be that only some of them do i dont know, i have checked the van type with the employee and it was iveco
Appreciate all your help so far
I'm unable to access policies for people on the Tesco website as no longer an employee.
There should be a section on disciplinary procedures and length of acceptable time frames?
I find it strange that the investigation wasn't undertaken and then adjourned to deliberate. The same manager could then call the colleague to give their decision of whether to discipline or not?
Then the colleague had the right to appeal the decision, which would be heard by a more senior manager, but this wouldn't normally be on the same day, as the colleague would require time to prepare their case.
What was the initial headline for the investigation, was anywhere stated that it was for gross misconduct?
I would suggest 'phoning ACAS for advice, or even Tesco helpline for clarification on current procedures of process.
Regarding the cut out of ignition, I'm assuming this as I have a push start car which cuts out when out of range, for added security. Perhaps ask a driver if this maybe the case on these van?
Quote from: JJH on 13-04-24, 04:42PMAn appeal wouldn't happen until after the disciplinary. Ie. If issued a warning then that'd be the point of appeal.
Of course if the colleague has an issue with the whole process then a grievance should be raised.
Having read through the thread it seems baffling it's got anywhere near an investigation. I'd imagine idling vans is common place(as at most stores) and id say a blanket approach to all drivers via a let's talk would be appropriate and possibly some re-training.
I think the driver not being in the van at the time the complainant appeared has a bearing on this however as I've been discovering during this the word "unattended" in the handbook which hasnt had its full meaning clarified either in writing or in any training that i know of needs clarified as unattended does not specify in the van, generally it would actually mean that the van should be in view and able to be gotten to by the driver before anyone was able to damage/steal van/goods and that it is basically guarded.
Mind you guarded is a whole other can of worms because are we not told that if someone is determined to take it and they may turn violent were to give them what they want anyway to protect ourselves
@lucgeo letter states "may result disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the company" it does seem in the policies it can be investigated then passed to seperate disciplinary at least in this case, just seems more questioning of the exact same scenario will be conducted with no other explanation available other than what the driver already gave, i do think however that the title including the words "idling", "unattended", "shutters open" hasnt changed since the investigation letter and so may be they intend pushing the exact same agenda even tho it was made clear what idling goes on as custom & practice here by most drivers on click and collect as well as the definition of unattended, as far a shutters open, this also should be a non issue as van was being clearly watched and also its common practice
For this type of investigation there has to be a separate disciplinary meeting held by a different manager.
Only in absence meetings can the same manager give disciplinary outcomes without separate meetings.
I've only skimmed everything however it reads to me, a complaint was put in by a Tesco employee,
Store sent investigation meeting invite out.
Team manager completed investigation and moved to disciplinary meeting.
Disciplinary meeting invite sent out,
Store manager to hold disciplinary meeting today.
That would be the process, after the disciplinary meeting today, you can appeal any outcome not until.
Again I only skimmed all the above however seems like a HO jobsworth has seen something they don't like and has put pressure on SD/Store to deal with it.
Don't think it warrants a full investigation from what I've read but could be missing something in the thread or in Policy's/Training.
I'm not currently in a Dot com store so don't know the ins/outs of current Dot Com processes.
@Morris999
So who can the colleague appeal the decision to if it's the store manager who gives a disciplinary notice? To whom can it be escalated?
@morris999 thats a good summary of the situation, driver trainer Jobsworth who was from what i was told was on verge of blowing his lid to point of causing the employee to be immediately stressed by the JW's approach. But 1st meeting both employee and me cannot see why it would even go to one at all as we both agree that point was well put across that there seems to be no rules broken here, in fact employees managers view was basically this process he had just done was unnecessary (that was ofter note taker had left unfortunately) but would pass it to disciplinary (i think to cover himself fully)
Bearing in mind it is likely this is HO jobsworth does that same jobsworth get to know (officially) anything in regards to the outcome or is that meant to be confidential and even kept from them
@lucgeo, they would have that explained in the meeting.
It would be either another store manager or SD depending on what the outcome was.
Either way it would be explained in the outcome letter they receive after the meeting.
@dfl. No the HO colleague should not be informed of the outcome as once they have made the initial complaint etc all that would be maybe required of them is a witness statement or further interview meeting.
Either way they should not be informed of the outcome.
The managers personal opinion spoken after the note taker has left the room unfortunately shouldn't interfere with the outcome, unless they say something along the lines of they are being made to do against company policy, but if they are not prepared to back that up then it would be your word against there's.
Well meeting resulted in a first written for the employee, store manager pushed through that unattended does need clarification which he will seek, but says hes spoken to relevant depts within tesco who stated to him that employee would have to be "within the area of the van" whatever that means, i think its definitely a case worth appealing but thats now up to the employee, letter states reason for warning as leaving the van unattended whilst idling the van, with shutters open whilst Again ignoring the fact that their wording is far too loose and should not expect the employee to know that this is "their" interpretation, admits basically that its unclear but still issues warning for the 3 items listed on the warning letter.
And also confirming that we can idle to keep warm if wel lock the van when we exit it, so the idling row the employee got is now pretty much moot point but still on the letter.
Im sure too i seen something in the training one time (a video) showing employees taking shopping to customers cars and not being right at the van either so how can that be right its contradictory
Employee said to me that they want to appeal this decision still based on the grounds that the drivers handbook wasnt clear enough, I've checked and even a large uk insurance company defines unattended same way as the employee presented to Tesco at investigation and disciplinary, only worry is that store manager said that appeal can lead to higher level disciplinary, from what i can see in policies for our people this is not true, can anyone else comment on what they know about this ?
Cheers
Correct...they cannot escalate the disciplinary warning on appeal. It's either overruled or status quo.
Respect to you for sticking by him, even though out of your comfort zone.👏👏
@lucgeo Thank you
Store manager talks a load of of balls, as usual they never know the policies.
It'll be up to an appeals manager,
The Appeals Manager is authorised to make a different decision if they feel it is appropriate e.g. they can:
uphold your appeal and reduce the level of disciplinary warning or no warning;
uphold your appeal and reinstate you if you were dismissed, giving you a lower level of warning*;
uphold your appeal and reinstate you if you were dismissed, giving you no warning; or
agree that the disciplinary sanction was correct in all the circumstances.
So better circumstance or same from what it says on the policy, the letters for managers say too of:
Action upheld,
Dismissal overturned,
Action reduced.
So it's worth going for it to be honest.
@oldfashionedplayer thank you watch this space, just some time to prepare
Does anyone have link to the current drivers handbook, been looking for ages
Is there anything on this subject on Click & Learn that would help?
Quote from: dfl on 18-04-24, 08:42PMDoes anyone have link to the current drivers handbook, been looking for ages
Does this help?
https://colleague-help.ourtesco.com/hc/en-us/articles/8215320133148-Large-Stores-My-Role-Packs
If it doesn't go abywhere just colleague help and search role pack.
Also the lead manager grocery home shopping ha like 20 pages of covering the store across everything from dotcom to fresh and customer service etc whilst store manager has 4 pages lol
Handbook isnt in role packs, iirc the unattended phrase is in some document (section H), it will be sought, this process is a nightmare, the disciplinary refers to appeal to group pm, online form took some finding, but no address either physical or online supplied to send it to (very convenient im sure), preparing one now to go to manager at store instead
@dfl
All email addresses are the same...just enquire the name of the group PP and insert it to the set format...can't remember the exact set out but it's along the lines of JoeBloggs.@Tesco.co.uk
Has someone out there got the correct format for emails??
It's mad hearing this because I know for 100% in my store there's a few vans with battery issues which get used for click and collect and are allways left running for unloading and have been for a hour 2 hours at a time and has never had any problems doing so
@1982dave same at our store, idling common practice, calming down a little now (wonder why), but i do still see it as i check when i go into work, it angers me no end the Jobsworth has done this, and indeed had assistance to do so
Ah
Quote from: dfl on 19-04-24, 08:27AMHandbook isnt in role packs, iirc the unattended phrase is in some document (section H), it will be sought, this process is a nightmare, the disciplinary refers to appeal to group pm, online form took some finding, but no address either physical or online supplied to send it to (very convenient im sure), preparing one now to go to manager at store instead
Ah I figured everything had mainly just added to the role packs apologies, worth a try then trying to, if you can't find the group pm, message colleague help or request it from your managers, they'll be able to give you the information if your stores area people manager and how to contact them, I know when I had to the 2 they gave me both phone numbers were "out of use" so I had to request they be looped into emails to get attention that way with colleague help.
Appeal letter ready, the online form cant be typed on properly as its not formatted correctly, so letter done will go by email if i get one, will be trying to get that from manager in next day or so
Quote from: dfl on 19-04-24, 12:47PM@1982dave same at our store, idling common practice, calming down a little now (wonder why), but i do still see it as i check when i go into work, it angers me no end the Jobsworth has done this, and indeed had assistance to do so
it's laughable really it's a issue when it suits but 99.9% of the time no one has a problem with it my store has sooo many damaged vans swapped over to click van left running I've seen it soo many times and no one has had a issue
Just been informed that notices will now be going up that vans have not to be left idling when not in the van, dont know how this will work with just 1 plug point for 2 vans (like setting staff up to fail), i will see the wording proper of these notices when they appear
So this goes in your favour for the appeal, as to put a notice up suggests it's not just a one off, and common practice.
So take a screen shot of the notices, and save for future reference. Can guarantee that within weeks a manager will try overriding the rules, especially if it's affecting scheduling.
Should that be the case, the request must be put in writing by said manager, and can still be refused by the colleague as an unreasonable request, as not in compliance with the rules. ;)
Like lugceo says, if they are throwing up posters it's pretty much admitting the issue is common practice otherwise it'd just be a case of saying "driver needs retraining" and just referring back to the training in it but not all drivers.. So definitely use that as part of your appeal process that the store is blatantly admitting its an issue and only singled out and penalised one colleague for it which could be seen as targeted.
@lucgeo @oldfashionedplayer I agree and will be collecting 'evidence' cheers all for the advice so far from everyone its helped a lot
Kinda weird, the employee said they were told couple of days ago that posters would be going up, now tells me as of today no such thing has appeared, very strange
Has anyone on here ever had a positive result from an appeal, ie:- reduced or wiped out
never gone to appeal but i have had a snr manager do an investigation on me and have to send the rarely used "sorry for accusing you template letter" she said in her 15 years she had never had to use it before. :D
Yes as an accused, I had a letter placed in my file by my manager to retract the warning given...you can't take anything out of a file, but a letter can be added to withdraw the disciplinary given, stopping it being automatically escalated in future disciplinary actions.
As a rep, I had a final warning overturned on appeal.
Plan your appeal, write down and make bullet points. Keep it concise, giving your reasons as to why you want to appeal. Don't waffle, don't allow being spoken down to by the manager, don't be critical about the previous manager or investigation, just stick to the points you want to make.
@lucgeo thanks, this will help with the employees appeal
Notice from management now added in The dept reads :-
IDLING
Please be aware that you are not to leave the engine running whilst you are not in attendance with the van. If you are not stood with the van you are to turn the engine off and lock it before you leave it.
This applies anywhere, whether it be on the road, in Click & Collect or in the yard.
If the van is left running and you are not with it, then the vehicle is not insured.
Quote from: dfl on 18-04-24, 08:42PMDoes anyone have link to the current drivers handbook, been looking for ages
so... I actually managed to find this if you need it still..
tesco help not colleague help - search - "Customer Delivery Driver Buddy Checklist" -
its called "Customer Delivery Driver Buddy Checklist - what good looks like"
on the page it has 2 links, a checklist and a learning plan,
in the learning plan - page 16-17 of 22 and theres "Useful links" one of them is Drivers handbook ;D
unfortunately doesnt say much in terms of the actual bit on idling, but at the bottom of the original is links for more policy bits that outline bits too and the bit i mentioned previously outlining Idling under - "Driver handbook - Road safety policies"
it does seem though that a buddy checklist and daily checklist thing says about idling from the handbook of "no idling", that was back in 2023, but still shouldn't be targeting just the one guy who's been noticed doing it / near his vehicle.
@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.
yeah its definitely worth challenging, if i can find information on the site im always happy to look, i like rooting for information :D
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.
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 ;)
@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
Does anyone here know the name of tesco delivery vans insurance company? Thanks, i'd like to check their definition of unattended
I believe it's still sopp & sopp
Is sopp & sopp not just the repairers as opposed to the actual underwriter for the van insurance
Fairly sure it's sopp & sopp, seen them handling non dotcom related claims in the past
Appeal is now in