Can anyone point me in the direction of the CCTV policy please. Recently a manager accessed it to see how long a colleague had taken for his break and consequently had a Lets Talk meeting.
Colleague had stopped on way to his break to help another colleague out for 30 minutes and delayed starting his break. Manager watched CCTV and says his break started when he left the shop floor and therefore he took an hour instead of 30 minutes. This seems wrong to me both from accessing CCTV for 'proof' and considering helping colleague out as part of a break.
Any advice I can give to my colleague?
The colleague should have A: told their manager they were helping someone else B: if they have set times to go then should have gone C: Ask the manager to view the footage of them helping someone else .Plus the fact of why would you leave your own job to go help some one else instead of having your break.
The advice to the colleague is to move on and in future check with the manager before doing something like that again. A let's talk isn't a punishment so there is no problem here.
Tell your colleague to put in a greivance against that manager for gross misconduct. CCTV monitoring of staff is for the sole purpose of security or H&S concerns, (hub). It is not a managers spy in the sky, and cannot be used to monitor staff productivity or timings.
Misuse of CCTV staff monitoring, if reported to the ?relevant authority? ( name escapes me ) carries a huge fine which runs into thousands.
Quote from: Daredevil on 10-10-20, 06:08AM
The colleague should have A: told their manager they were helping someone else B: if they have set times to go then should have gone C: Ask the manager to view the footage of them helping someone else .Plus the fact of why would you leave your own job to go help some one else instead of having your break.
A: the manager only had to ask the colleague they helped, if they did support their colleague when asked ( core value)
B: Is a colleague requesting help to be ignored then? " one team...the Tesco team"
C: 8-) see previous post 8-)...why wouldn't you help someone else if asked?? They wouldn't ask if they weren't in need of help would they ???
Probs isn't misuse if the manager suspected the colleague was not following the break entitlement. The CCTV use statement thing does say one of the uses is to ensure policies are followed.
It is misuse...regardless of the managers suspicion. Should the manager suspect break entitlement abuse, they have to...err...MANAGE that suspected abuse (clue's in the title)
That CANNOT use CCTV surveillance solely to monitor staff productivity.
It's not productivity though really is it. More along the lines of misconduct rather than job performance which would be productivity.
Wouldn't the hub pick up on things like that? I'd be concerned if a manager has enough free time to investigate a colleague that closely, if this is in superstore that would be indicative of where the next round of cuts needs to happen.
CCTV monitoring should only be used where there is a suspected breach of security or H&S. It is not for ongoing monitoring of staff during their shift.
If staff are standing chatting, sneaking out for a crafty fag, or suspected of taking longer on breaks, then it has to be MANAGED, using all their management skills...having a quiet word, a quick " don't let me catch you again!" etc...If a manager can then prove, using their own ongoing management observation, that a colleague is continually taking longer breaks, then this can be brought in as a disciplinary, for "stealing company time" which is gross misconduct, ONLY THEN can the CCTV be looked at for the stated dates/times to confirm the accusation of misconduct.
CCTV use is very strict, managers are not allowed to monitor performance, also I’m pretty sure a senior manager has to sign off on it first, op don’t listen rmt o the people that say this isn’t a problem, it most certainly is
8-) thanks 8-)
My omission in using the term performance alongside productivity, may have been misleading...appreciate the clarification :thumbup:
Thank you all. I should have said colleague was helping a fellow team member with a job they had joint responsibility for. No set break times so that wasn't the issue either. Using CCTV footage definitely sounds wrong from what Lucgeo has said. I will suggest colleague takes it further with senior management and a grievance.
8-) good grief :o
That manager is well out of order. Checking CCTV in the first place, then giving a "let's talk", accusing a colleague of taking a longer break, while that colleague was in fact doing a routine they are paid to perform and have a responsibility to complete.
Shop floor workers don't have set time breaks, like checkouts. They are, for the most, left to fit in their breaks with their routines...only if a colleague was deliberately stalling a break to finish earlier, continually taking it after the 4 hour limit or to deliberately evade a team rumble would it need to be managed.
My hunch is that this manager wanted to delegate a task to your colleague, and was told that they were on/due a 30 min break...the manager then saw their arse? :-X
Do lets talks still have to be signed by the person it's given to? If false accusations make up the body of the lets talk, then surely the employee can refuse to sign because they disagree with what has been said? What would happen in that instance?
Sorry this is totally off topic, can’t find way to post new topic.
Does anyone know policy for drivers who go over 6 points? Can’t find information anywhere.
[mod]Ref: starting new topic. Please read VLH Supporter Benefits (http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?page=17)[/mod]
[gmod]Look for more suitable topic, possibly in dot com section. [/gmod]
It begs the question, if the employee stopped on the way to their break to spend half an hour assisting a colleague who clearly needed help, why didn't the manager help that colleague rather than hiding away watching their employees on CCTV? Tells you all you need to know about their style of 'management', I suspect. (Also, if they're that keen on remote surveillance of staff, maybe check the changing rooms and toilets for hidden cameras?! :D)
If i remember clearly lets talk form does not have anywhere that says sign here so just refuse to sign it anyway
It was a thing when I was there that after the lets talk the manager got you to sign and then placed the lets talk in your personnel folder, might not be the case anymore but I suppose was put in place to verify that the conversation happened and to prevent unscrupulous managers writing things in them when conversations didn't actually happen.
The "let's talk" is unsigned, but placed in your personnel file...you can insist on signing it, and you can also make your own notes of the let's talk. A "let's talk" is placed into your file can be used at a later date for a ongoing disciplinary investigation. A "let's talk" cannot be removed from your file, but if it is proven, at a later date, to be incorrect, then a note must be attached to state that.
we have a female manager who fills the whole form up with waffle on purpose,so there is no room for colleagues to add their own comments,she normally gives out at least 10 a week,and has the nickname "paperwork",because of all the extra hassle she creates
Quote from: lucgeo on 10-10-20, 09:10PM
The "let's talk" is unsigned, but placed in your personnel file...you can insist on signing it, and you can also make your own notes of the let's talk. A "let's talk" is placed into your file can be used at a later date for a ongoing disciplinary investigation. A "let's talk" cannot be removed from your file, but if it is proven, at a later date, to be incorrect, then a note must be attached to state that.
What is in place then to stop managers just writing whatever they want in a lets talk and putting it into an employees file without the employee realising or the meeting taking place? The situation could arise where the manager can refer to the fictitious lets talk and progress disciplinary action without a meeting of the lets talk actually taking place?
Exactly nightandday, and lets be honest the chances are it has happened at various times already.
Quote from: bornfree on 10-10-20, 02:16AM
Can anyone point me in the direction of the CCTV policy please. Recently a manager accessed it to see how long a colleague had taken for his break and consequently had a Lets Talk meeting.
Colleague had stopped on way to his break to help another colleague out for 30 minutes and delayed starting his break. Manager watched CCTV and says his break started when he left the shop floor and therefore he took an hour instead of 30 minutes. This seems wrong to me both from accessing CCTV for 'proof' and considering helping colleague out as part of a break.
Any advice I can give to my colleague?
Here is the poliy to take a look for yourself
https://colleague-help.ourtesco.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001392126-UK-CCTV-Full-Policy-and-Supporting-Documents-
Quote from: NightAndDay on 10-10-20, 09:43PM
Quote from: lucgeo on 10-10-20, 09:10PM
The "let's talk" is unsigned, but placed in your personnel file...you can insist on signing it, and you can also make your own notes of the let's talk. A "let's talk" is placed into your file can be used at a later date for a ongoing disciplinary investigation. A "let's talk" cannot be removed from your file, but if it is proven, at a later date, to be incorrect, then a note must be attached to state that.
What is in place then to stop managers just writing whatever they want in a lets talk and putting it into an employees file without the employee realising or the meeting taking place? The situation could arise where the manager can refer to the fictitious lets talk and progress disciplinary action without a meeting of the lets talk actually taking place?
Nothing...but it was the same with the informals... told it was an informal, but then notes were written afterwards as a 'first written' as signing was optional... and I know this from my own naive inexperience.
It was just per chance I mentioned in passing, to personnel manager, I'd just come back from an informal, who immediately corrected me saying it was a first written?? said no...was asked if notes were written in meeting? said no... he shot to the office, returning with notes that were allegedly written in the meeting?? said I'd never seen them before.
That section manager came verrrryy close to losing their job, and I received a grovelling apology from that manager..I became a union rep very soon after.
If it was a first written as per policy then the written warning should have been documented in notes and you should have signed them at the end of the meeting, you would have been well within your rights to have the warning removed from your file for breach of process.
Quote from: lucgeo on 11-10-20, 08:07AM
Quote from: NightAndDay on 10-10-20, 09:43PM
Quote from: lucgeo on 10-10-20, 09:10PM
The "let's talk" is unsigned, but placed in your personnel file...you can insist on signing it, and you can also make your own notes of the let's talk. A "let's talk" is placed into your file can be used at a later date for a ongoing disciplinary investigation. A "let's talk" cannot be removed from your file, but if it is proven, at a later date, to be incorrect, then a note must be attached to state that.
What is in place then to stop managers just writing whatever they want in a lets talk and putting it into an employees file without the employee realising or the meeting taking place? The situation could arise where the manager can refer to the fictitious lets talk and progress disciplinary action without a meeting of the lets talk actually taking place?
Nothing...but it was the same with the informals... told it was an informal, but then notes were written afterwards as a 'first written' as signing was optional... and I know this from my own naive inexperience.
It was just per chance I mentioned in passing, to personnel manager, I'd just come back from an informal, who immediately corrected me saying it was a first written?? said no...was asked if notes were written in meeting? said no... he shot to the office, returning with notes that were allegedly written in the meeting?? said I'd never seen them before.
That section manager came verrrryy close to losing their job, and I received a grovelling apology from that manager..I became a union rep very soon after.
Surely this would be an open and shut case in a constructive unfair dismissal lawsuit, even if it wasn't I wouldn't be surprised if current employment laws aren't strong enough for there not to be a checks and balances provision in the form of some sort of oversight in disciplinary procedures, In America and some companies in the UK, disciplinaries and investigation responsibilities are being taken away from managers due to there being an increase in the number of lawsuits due to process not being followed by unqualified managers, which is hardly surprising considering the generally unqualified nature of their role.
Quote from: penguin on 11-10-20, 02:11PM
If it was a first written as per policy then the written warning should have been documented in notes and you should have signed them at the end of the meeting, you would have been well within your rights to have the warning removed from your file for breach of process.
I was told it was an informal in the meeting, no notes were written in the meeting, only written up after I left the meeting as a 1st written...it turned out that my manager was under strict instructions from a senior manager to serve me a first written, but as we were friendly and worked well together, he foolishly tried to keep the peace by keeping a heavily relied on, good team worker, onside but also following senior team instructions.
This all came out in the meeting with the personnel manager, who read the riot act to both my manager and senior team manager, who denied ever giving the instruction and threw the section manager under the bus.
The warning was ripped up in front of me, and I was advised that I did not have to accept the apology, and could take out a grievance against my manager. I chose to accept the apology, as my manager had always stood up for our team in the past, and always had our back.
This is why personnel managers are needed back in store.......you just don't have anyone to go to now.All part of the master plan to devalue staff.
Quote from: lucgeo on 11-10-20, 03:21PM
Quote from: penguin on 11-10-20, 02:11PM
If it was a first written as per policy then the written warning should have been documented in notes and you should have signed them at the end of the meeting, you would have been well within your rights to have the warning removed from your file for breach of process.
I was told it was an informal in the meeting, no notes were written in the meeting, only written up after I left the meeting as a 1st written...it turned out that my manager was under strict instructions from a senior manager to serve me a first written, but as we were friendly and worked well together, he foolishly tried to keep the peace by keeping a heavily relied on, good team worker, onside but also following senior team instructions.
This all came out in the meeting with the personnel manager, who read the riot act to both my manager and senior team manager, who denied ever giving the instruction and threw the section manager under the bus.
The warning was ripped up in front of me, and I was advised that I did not have to accept the apology, and could take out a grievance against my manager. I chose to accept the apology, as my manager had always stood up for our team in the past, and always had our back.
Isn't Personnel manager/people partner a WL3 manager as well as department lead manager? I thought only a manager who is one WL above or higher can discipline, so if it exists a WL4 manager (whatever role that would be).
Can be any manager who has completed the relevant e-learning doing a disciplinary, does not have to be a higher work level anymore.
E learning are you for real can’t even do a 4 point check in our store ..... as for more serious issues e learning isn’t up to it another short cut joke.
A personnel manager (at that time) was responsible for all managers, regardless of level, to adhere to policies and procedures. They could, and would, reign in any manager who was in contravention of policies.
Exactly why they are needed in my opinion.
Some p.m would ensure managers followed due process, but others were happy to turn a blind eye or even back up a manager known to be in the wrong in order to save a fellow managers neck.
I've experienced the latter type, one incident involved the HR director, resulted in the P.M and the SM being sacked for gross misconduct.
Also, can't the more senior managers make life for the personnel manager difficult if they have the grapes to try reign them in, I'd imagine it would be akin to a ca telling off an SM?
Not really...the senior area personnel director is a force to be reckoned with, I've seen SM's run for cover when they've been caught out not adhering to policies and guidelines. I've even seen one hauled over the coals for failing to respond to a written request from a CA within the accepted time frame.
A weak PM can be manipulated by an SM to a certain degree, but only a foolish or naive PM would allow non compliance of policies or procedures to be practised or go unchallenged.
Quote from: lucgeo on 10-10-20, 11:24AM
It is misuse...regardless of the managers suspicion. Should the manager suspect break entitlement abuse, they have to...err...MANAGE that suspected abuse (clue's in the title)
That CANNOT use CCTV surveillance solely to monitor staff productivity.
yea its against the policy. Will have a look see if i can find the part and upload it.
Quote from: lucgeo on 13-10-20, 10:35AM
Not really...the senior area personnel director is a force to be reckoned with, I've seen SM's run for cover when they've been caught out not adhering to policies and guidelines. I've even seen one hauled over the coals for failing to respond to a written request from a CA within the accepted time frame.
A weak PM can be manipulated by an SM to a certain degree, but only a foolish or naive PM would allow non compliance of policies or procedures to be practised or go unchallenged.
Managers in our store think the CCTV is some sort of toy or VAR they can use whenever they want, pulling staff for talking, phone usage and other minor infringements and it seems to be the long service staff they are targeting. I myself have come in for some abuse with CCTV but they just don't seem to understand the camera never lies and are just about to get payback for false accusations which cannot be denied, but the management can't stop denying and covering for each other. For legal reasons I cannot go into the actual allegations.
And hopefully your legal representation will include informing this continuous abuse of CCTV monitoring to the relevant authorities...good few hundred grand fine to that store...the best those managers can hope for will be Tesco disciplinary for gross misconduct :-X
Didn't you know Tesco is above the law, they will pull strings to get the judge or whoever administered the fine sacked if they dare have the grapes to challenge the Big T.
Well nothing really happened to individuals because of the false acounting scandal I don't think. Tesco got fined. Feels like they are pretty much above the law.
Sorry was busy last night.
Anyway I went on the system at work looked up the policy current as of yesterday and took a picture of it for you.
I would start a complaint i think if i were you.
https://ibb.co/b7P9RFm
(https://i.ibb.co/b7P9RFm/policy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b7P9RFm)
8-) That's a good link that I have for future reference... :thumbup: just reading between the lines, it certainly gives the impression that Tesco are aware of the serious legal and financial implications and wants to keep it " in house" wherever possible :-X
Quote from: lucgeo on 28-10-20, 12:24PM
And hopefully your legal representation will include informing this continuous abuse of CCTV monitoring to the relevant authorities...good few hundred grand fine to that store...the best those managers can hope for will be Tesco disciplinary for gross misconduct :-X
At the moment it will just be the manager who initialized this, but maybe it can out a lot more abuse of the system with the let's talk paper trail for staff being reprimanded for using phones, taking breaks , etc. as we all know it happens in most stores. The down side of this is a lot of staff are to scared to stand up and be counted.
Quote from: lucgeo on 29-10-20, 09:44AM
8-) That's a good link that I have for future reference... :thumbup: just reading between the lines, it certainly gives the impression that Tesco are aware of the serious legal and financial implications and wants to keep it " in house" wherever possible :-X
Tesco is the legal and financial institution, if Tesco goes down,the tax contributions will also go and there won't be enough money in the public purse to facillitate law and order.
This will factor heavily in a judges decision, as well as the fact that Tesco has connections and can make judges "disappear" if they prove to be chocolate in their peanut butter.
Source, NightAndDay?
I've already said too much, the men in blue will take me away.
8-) or the men in white 8-) are you on serious medication or just wacky baccy ???
I will endeavour to make the CCTV policy image downloadable from VLH download page.
Having lived for more than 7 decades and fought many 'battles' I have no doubt a great deal of control is exercised not only behind the closed doors of the corridors of power but also by the 'old pals act' in the halls of commerce.
A very large amount of mutual back scratching occurs.
It was ever thus. I still think of myself as part of the Anglo-Saxon serfdom subjugated by the Norman conquerors who's descendants still dominate the corridors of power.
Quote from: lucgeo on 29-10-20, 08:17PM
8-) or the men in white 8-) are you on serious medication or just wacky baccy ???
Nothing but Fexofenadine, I'm allergic to some as of yet unidentified substance and hayfever.
We had an issue a little while back regarding delivery in that it could not be finished due to time restraints, the store manager reviewed cctv and said that the problem stems from splitting the delivery which he states we should not be doing and has individual cctv of staff working on there aisles to show some sort of issue with speed i believe, is this allowed and within the cctv policy.
You can't use CCTV to monitor/assess performance, you can use it for conduct issues.
On the help page (not the colleague help one) there's the cctv policy and from. What you describe it's definitely misconduct on the store managers part for using it that way, as its not assisting in an investigation, and they aren't allowed to "randomly monitor colleagues" either, there must be due course of reason and an open investigation for checking it.
So time restraints and splitting is definitely not a reason for it, and well within making a complaint against for misuse of cctv.
Also on the same site, if you search brilliant basics and delivery unloading, it'll also tell you that splitting is the correct method (designated splitting areas) and any cages that aren't stacked correctly / damaged should be immediately dismantled onto new cages.
So definitely make a complaint!
Unless you know what they are splitting,pointless offering advice,very few cages actually need splitting these days but some colleagues are anal about presort
You say very few... Its very few come in the correct way... Like tonight we have meat and Yoghurts, health and beauty and beer, tins come on with pasta cages and also cereal cages ;D
Nothing is ever right.. So ours are always splitting, we always split produce and chilled down due to how mixed it is, so we use the back of the warehouse usually... Never has been a cold chain that's followed though, as hard as some may try.
100% agree @oldfashioned player, our deliveries are a mess, fresh being far worse than grocery but they all need splitting. As you say the correct method is that deliveries should be pre-sorted, we have this document printed out and stuck on the wall next to our loading bay. Furthermore our store manager insists that deliveries are split so quite the opposite of the store manager in question here.
As far as I'm aware, grocery DC's are supposed to be laid out so you dont need to split. Random products on top of other cages is due to another issue in the DC
Funny how most threads end up miles away from the original topic 8-)
The use of cctv to monitor work productivity is illegal and can only be done if they suspect a crime is being committed also if your in a union let them know what you suspect is happening
It's in gdrp laws
That is not so. CCTV usage isn't exclusively limited to safety and security purposes by GDPR/DPA, nor by POFA or HRA. What they do say is that usage must be legitimate, proportionate and not overly intrusive, they also require that employees must be informed of the purposes for which the CCTV is used.
In the case of Tesco, the policy (and signage) only states that CCTV is to be used for safety, security and compliance with policy purposes, no mention is made of performance & so it can't be used for that purpose - even if a performance issue is observed during normal usage. Or more correctly if they did use it in that way then it would likely be a Data Breach under DPA/GDPR and leave Tesco open to a very significant fine from the ICO.
Glad I stumbled upon this thread. I'll be checking official policy myself, but we have just been informed in our store that they will be keeping a check on our breaks using the cctv.
I would look forward to the first disciplinary regarding break timing using CCTV...and the slimy manager trying to push it through as "stealing company time under compliance of policy"
Yep...good luck to them on that one!
Quote from: Raven on 15-01-24, 11:18AMGlad I stumbled upon this thread. I'll be checking official policy myself, but we have just been informed in our store that they will be keeping a check on our breaks using the cctv.
A colleague taking a longer break than entitled isn't performance related though
It's a conduct issue, still not a reason to use it under ICOs terms of use.
Saying it's a conduct issue is something I vehemently disagree with, in Head Office I and everybody else take more than their break entitlement on occasion and nobody bats an eyelid, it's a regimented classist structure, notions of "you've got to be 100% productive 100% of your hours" is not only unrealistic, it's inhuman.
No but its normally give and take. If colleague A generally sticks to their break times and on a single rare occasion takes a extra 10 minutes it isn't fair to treat them the same as colleague B who every single break returns 15 mins late.
They've brought this up many times...and dumped it again, the reason being that it's difficult to monitor.
CCTV should not be operating in rest areas. So if a colleague is seen going for a break, there's no knowing how long that break is for actually being taken as a break!
A checkout operator on a 15 min break is often timed from when they leave the checkout area, which can be furthest from the rest room, so walk time and customer interaction should be considered and included.
On entering the rest room, you still have the actual making of your drink, using the appliances etc...if there's a queue to use the toaster or to make a drink are add ons to your break time!
Then they've now added on cleaning up and washing your utensils after use, with no extra time allowance allocated.
When these break times were first calculated, there was a full team in the rest room to provide your requirements. Be it the drinks machine was ready and operational and a cooked meal, or equipment for your preference readily accessible.
It used to be that you clocked in and out for your break, and the clock in was close to the rest room, so your break time was calculated away from your work area.
The answer, when this raises its head,is for everyone to clock in and out for all their breaks, which is something the wage clerk doesn't like as it creates more work for them, and moving forward will probably affect the new systems. However it is your right to do so, and everyone doing it will soon have them backing off!
If your ever challenged though with the breaks, the security information they make you sign every so often says the shop floor is up until the colleague room doors.. So your technically still working even if your walking to the colleague room, it's only when you pass those doors that you start your break as your required to have an uninterrupted break.
Your classed as a customer on your break too, so it says about not going into the back for stuff etc and says where you can and can't go, so you can always use that as your defense to be honest.. Its why ours start going up a few minutes earlier.. Plus you've also got the right to washing your hands due to the work your doing :D