Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

08-08-20, 12:28PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 47781
  • Total Topics: 956
  • Online Today: 108
  • Online Ever: 525
  • (11-07-20, 04:47PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: Investigation meeting: Front End  (Read 3980 times)

Morris999

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #25 on: 31-07-20, 03:27PM »
@Welshie it’s for everyone
Realistically unless you are on maternity or long term sick then there is no reason why people shouldn’t be able to take their legally statutory holidays in retail or their full entitlement for that matter.
If your are in the self-isolating or shielding group you would have used at least 2 weeks of that already so only 2 weeks plus bank holidays to take in 8/9 months, some of which will be used for Xmas most likely anyway.

I know this next comment will probably upset some people’s egos but no-one in stores is that important that the store cannot survive without them for 28 days throughout the year, pandemic or not.
I get the reasons why people are saying they don’t want to take it, but what’s going to happen next year if everyone carries it all over?
People will be complaining they have a right to take it, but because of manning situations they won’t be able to take it.
Yes I know you will all say that’s Tesco’s problem not yours, until you are left working under even more pressure because everyone’s off taking 2 years worth of holidays.

The deferred holidays was more for industry’s that because they were having to close or have leave cancelled(eg, police, military and some NHS workers)due to the pandemic there employees were unable to take them(I get people will say the entire furloughed scheme is one big holiday)
Tesco put no restrictions on people taking holidays other than the usual, so again other than people not wanting to take them, Tesco’s has made it quite clear holidays are to carry on as normal and once the colleague has hit their  statutory amount taken none will then be carried over.

I’m just putting it out there again so people don’t get to Feb/March and are suddenly surprised/shocked or angry when they are told they cannot carry over X amount of long service holidays they were planning on doing and lose them.
We all know it will happen, and the usual colleagues will be doing there hardest to s**g Tesco off for it.

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #26 on: 31-07-20, 03:43PM »
@barafear

The fact that she is a union rep, does throw up problems, as union members could rightly complain that as a rep, she should not be representing  a non paying colleague. So mum's the word  :-X

With regard her not speaking on your behalf...she can ask questions, she can state your case, she can give an opinion...what she can't do is answer any questions posed directly to you, unless you have stated that she is to do this...but then you can't reply.

Is she a newly appointed rep? Perhaps she is unaware that entering the meeting with her colleague hat on, does not differ in terms of representation rights...Tesco managers will state at the beginning of the meeting, that a colleague can only take notes, and are prohibited from speaking...untrue  :-X

It's all there on ACAS, if the managers care to check, under chosen representatives.
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

barafear

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 161
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #27 on: 31-07-20, 04:16PM »
Lucego>

I think she's been a rep for at least a year.
To be honest, I'm not looking to say too much in the investigation meeting at all.
As I have previously stated, I'd like to hear the "allegations" against me - and who has made them. And then what evidence they have to back them up.
I do think this is all very trivial and I would be surprised if it was considered to be anything more serious than a warning - but I also take on board the other "ramifications" - i.e the risk of me leaving my till without telling team support.

Of course, the flipside is that on the occasions (there have been several) where I have informed team support, at most they have closed my gate, they've advised me not to bother locking my till (knowing I'll only be a few mins) and I hardly think they stand guard over my till - so what I'm trying to spell out is that the difference in risk between "informing and not informing" is very minimal.

Anyway - thanks for the help guys/gals

Redshoes

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #28 on: 01-08-20, 06:29AM »
There is no reason not to take holiday. The time out was needed. Holiday from work is not so you can go away, it's time out from the business.
Union reps can talk in meeting but they can't answer a question directed to you. You pay union fees for the union support, knowledge and experience. If a rep goes in with you but you are not in the union they are with you just as moral support. You don't get the full service without paying the fees. It's like an insurance. It's there if you need it but you have to pay. If you opt not to pay you don't get it.

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #29 on: 01-08-20, 09:09AM »
If a colleague goes in, that colleague has the same recognition, has the same freedom to ask and prose questions as a chosen representative, and should be afforded the same respect and courtesy shown to official reps.

If a union rep, choses to attend and support a colleague who is a non Union member, they are still there in the capacity of a chosen representative, and should be giving their all. They can't just switch off, knowingly allow themselves to be muffled from speaking, or question the wrong judgement passed, if procedures or policies haven't been followed. It can't be a case of the difference between the copper and gold package. Hence the reason I think this rep has made an error of judgement, by agreeing to attend the meeting, if they intend to stay silent.
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

barafear

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 161
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #30 on: 03-08-20, 11:40AM »
Update on meeting which took place on Saturday.

In terms of my "rep" (chosen companion) - to be honest, she seemed unclear on the rules of whether she could talk (or even if I had taken someone completely different whether they could talk - had a quick chat for about 3 mins before we went into investigation meeting - she seemed to summarise it by saying she/any other companion could talk - but could not answer questions put to me directly.

All I was hoping/expecting was clarification of certain points of policy etc. (not necessarily with indepth Usdaw knowledge).

As it turned out, she didn't say too much - and neither was she really required to.

My manager started the meeting explaining what it was all about (basically reading the letter I had been sent) and asked me to  "answer the allegations"

I stopped her in her tracks and stated how shocked I was to receive the letter - and asked point blank - who has made these allegations against me.
In a roundabout way, my manager kept saying "Team Support raised these allegations" - so not citing any of the Team support individuals.
My manager then gave a bit of backstory which involved the manager themselves "noticing" I was not wearing my badge a few weeks ago - and instructed Team Support to monitor me - and over that period of time I had not adhered - therefore the investigation - so I stated "so basically the allegation has come from you, and you are leading the investigation into your own allegation?

The manager then referred to the Let's Talk I had on 17th May. This was with a member of team support, who told me at the time that the reason for the Let's Talk had been as a result of the manager telling the member of Team support to give me the Let's Talk.

This was the Let's talk that concluded with the incident of me piercing my sensitive area on my chest with the pin, and requesting an alternative non-lethal (!!) type of badge - to which I was told my comments/request/concerns would be passed to management and I would hear back.

Clearly, I didn't hear back - until this letter turned up.

Clearly, during the investigation meeting, my manager tried to "laugh off my concerns" - and I loosely quote her saying "in over 20 years at Tesco, the manager was unaware of any concerns/complaints/injuries caused by the pin of the badge" - implying that I was in the wrong!


Moving onto the "leaving my till without informing" - the manager referred to me leaving my till without informing Team Support - I asked for clarification of which incident or incidents the manager was referring to? The manager stated it was me walking off the till with a full belt of shopping on it and the customer standing there - and implied it was "last week" - I stated that an incident like that had happened about 4 weeks ago and the details were as follows:

There was a leak/spillage in my previous customer's shopping - my hands were covered in some sort of goo - I was on a till that was very close to the public toilets (15 yards maybe) - and I agreed with the customer that I had to wash my hands and the customer agreed and said he did not want me scanning his shopping with all this goo over me - I was back serving within 60-75 seconds and the customer did not have an issue - in fact he was quite pleased.

Clearly, Team support just "spotted" this incident and did not speak to customer or even attempt to jump on my till in my absence and serve the customer (if they were that concerned) - the manager looked ashen faced and clearly was unaware of this version of events - so we quickly moved on.

The manager gave the normal company spiel of IDQ, customer service etc.etc. to which I replied I was aware of all that - and I also used the very real example of it taking more than 3 mins for Team support to answer my red light call (on that very morning). I requested that maybe I should have a headset on the till and then I'd be happy to "inform" Team support whenever I needed to leave the till. The manager actually stated that this was an idea for Tesco a few years ago but it was not pursued. Don't Aldi staff all wear headsets? The reason I mention Aldi is that a new Aldi has recently opened and this is partly the reason for our management running around chucking investigations/disciplinaries/dismissals around like confetti.

Cut a long story a bit shorter - we were sent out of meeting while manager and company notetaker discussed - and then called back in to be told I had some "Next Steps"

Basically wear my badge and don't leave my till!!!

Not sure if it was a victory or a score draw!!

Thanks for your help and support guys.

My companion actually stated that I articulated myself very well (albeit whilst I was "shaking" - a combination of rage/frustration).

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #31 on: 03-08-20, 02:46PM »
 :thumbup:  well done you   :thumbup:

You have a right to a copy of the notes, and I hope those notes contained the reference you made, that the manager was leading an investigation into her own allegations?
This should have been picked up on right away by your rep, and the meeting adjourned, stating the above as the reason, being against Tesco policies.
Should there be any attempt to escalate at a later date, these notes will prove that this meeting cannot be used or referred to, due to non compliance of correct policies and procedures.
Instead of monitoring the non wearing of a badge, you should have been expressly informed to wear one, each time you didn't. Pathetic waste of time and resources to monitor such a trivial misdemeanour.

Moving forward, wear your badge, and if you need to use the toilet, make a note of the time, any problems encountered trying to bring it to the attention of the TS, or any unreasonable delay in your request being granted.

Jeez...I'm glad I worked shopfloor and not checkouts. It really wouldn't have gone down well with my team, if we had to ask permission to go for a p**s  :-X :-X
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

Welshie

  • VLH Supporter
  • Smart Arse
  • ******
  • Posts: 579
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #32 on: 03-08-20, 03:00PM »
Well done !

Jackanory

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #33 on: 03-08-20, 03:18PM »
The badges are a liability anyway. I’ve been pricked myself before as a box fell from the top shelf hitting my badge. Then you have colleagues wearing anyone’s badge just to satisfy the management that they have one.

barafear

  • VLH Supporter
  • Regular Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 161
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #34 on: 03-08-20, 03:18PM »
I forgot to mention one further point (in my desire to cut a long story short).

When the meeting resumed (after the adjournment for my manager to consider the "evidence"), my manager referred to an "informal discussion" that was still in my personnel file from 2012 (!!!) about not wearing my name badge - the manager indicated it showed an ongoing issue - I responded with "the ongoing issue of failing to provide me with a velcro badge?" I did express a level of shock that this was still "on file" - questioning that "warnings" (not that I've had any) only stay on file for a year - so how can an informal discussion be still there after eight years?
The "company notetaker" who also happens to be the "office manager" (I don't know exactly what their job title/role is) - she stated that it would stay on my file until seven years after I leave - stating that "informal discussions" were not the same as a warning that "dropped off after a year or whatever" - clearly they're not - but clearly they are not as serious as a warning and therefore should not be referred to at all!! By this stage of the meeting, I was doing well to hold it together - clearly this just proved my manager has it in for me- and is clutching at any straw possible to make this happen.


One further point - which actually made my rep "giggle" in the meeting - as we were sat around the table, my manager removed her waistcoat - and as she sat there in her blouse, I noticed she had no name badge!!
So I actually mentioned it - I said "isn't it ironic that as the four of us are sat around this table that you (the manager) are the only one not wearing a name badge" - to which the response was "it's on my waistcoat which I've just taken off" followed by "I'm not on the shopfloor so I don't need to wear one" (at which point clearly I should have emphasised the point by removing the badge that I had reluctantly put on - but I didn't ) - I did mentioned "well clearly, when I've been spotted not wearing a badge on my shirt, it's probably because it's on my fleece and as the temperature in the store has been roasting for the last two months, I've always needed to remove my fleece " - obviously, the response to that was "I can order as many name badges as I want" - the rep then stepped in and said "the store has been having problems receiving any name badges at all - loads of people ordered - but no deliveries" - to which the manager stated "they would look into it" - blah blah blah

I was tempted to use the shopfloor analogy - but I guess I can see the "difference" in a way (i.e. if someone disappears from filling up the bananas, no one is likely to come along and nick a box of bananas - but the till is a different beast (despite the numerous CCTV cameras trained on every till, not to mention other colleagues being on tills opposite and behind) - I also wanted to know whether my manager had to ask for the SM's permission to go to the toilet either - but I didn't think that would have helped much. I had read one of the posts on here stating I should be polite and professional during the investigation meeting.


Jackanory

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #35 on: 03-08-20, 03:25PM »
Barafear :)

lackofinterest

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1177
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #36 on: 03-08-20, 03:50PM »
nice one barafear :thumbup:. another f****ng numpty who should get a disciplinary for wasting company time >:D >:D >:D :D :D :D

lucgeo

  • VLH Supporter
  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2507
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #37 on: 03-08-20, 03:51PM »
Informal discussions, should only be referred to if escalating to a formal warning, of the disciplinary process, so should be treated the same...also the note taker should not be making any comments or passing any opinions...she is there to take notes and stay silent!

Hmm...if you have got the nowse to stand up for yourself, and run rings around the management, you'd make an ideal rep :thumbup:
Live for today. Learn from yesterday.

lackofinterest

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 1177
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #38 on: 03-08-20, 03:54PM »
"informal discussion" that was still in my personnel file from 2012. so "informal" that it stays on file for 100 years ??? :D :D :D :D :D

NightAndDay

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #39 on: 03-08-20, 04:31PM »
Next Steps are basically mickey mouse disciplinaries, when the upper echelons of Tesco don't like you, they will use next steps, their lips salivating at the prospect of giving you at least a first written warning, but to be downhearted to find that you're a consultant in CA clothing, but if you're a ca with at least a 100 iq, and haven't done anything wrong, you're untouchable. You won't progress at Tesco, but you'll at least be a thorn in your managers side with your superior intellect.
« Last Edit: 03-08-20, 04:32PM by NightAndDay »

Jackanory

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #40 on: 03-08-20, 04:35PM »
NightandDay  :)

miriam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #41 on: 03-08-20, 06:22PM »
Jackanory
I agree with what u you say
If your face don't fit you will have lots of meetings cause u you r are just a thorn in clicks side

Also the click r are unintelligent idiots

Administrator Comment From the VLH registration agreement. You are required to post only in the English language.'Text speak' is not acceptable.
« Last Edit: 03-08-20, 09:33PM by Nomad »

Mutti

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #42 on: 05-08-20, 12:38PM »
CLICK
A short, sharp sound as of a switch being operated or of two hard objects coming smartly into contact.


CLIQUE
A small close-knit group of people who do not readily allow others to join them.

Administrator Comment Well spotted Mutti, want a job ? :)
« Last Edit: 05-08-20, 12:46PM by Nomad »
 

Robert Onedin.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #43 on: 05-08-20, 09:16PM »
Barafear they both sound like very trivial things to warrant meetings.I sometimes wonder how management keep a straight face during these so called investigations.As they often sound so trivial I wonder how people don't laugh at the waste of time they are sometimes.And paper wasted sending out these let's talk rubbish. :)

Mutti

  • Regular Pain
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Investigation meeting: Front End
« Reply #44 on: 06-08-20, 10:31PM »
CLICK
A short, sharp sound as of a switch being operated or of two hard objects coming smartly into contact.


CLIQUE
A small close-knit group of people who do not readily allow others to join them.

Well spotted Mutti, want a job ?  :)


I may work on a checkout, but underneath lurks the kind of teacher that leaves your essay with so many red marks it looks like there's been a massacre!
 

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk