sacked...

jobbingmusician

Did you appeal against your dismissal? From what I can see, this is what happened

OP mystery shopped by shopper who was not actually under age.

OP did not challenge shopper because they appeared to OP to be over age.

OP dismissed.

This is NOT the action of a reasonable employer, and I would think an appeal or ET would have a good chance of success. What did your employer actually require you to do as part of the Think 21 requirements? Challenge everyone?

Did you have any previous warnings?

IDEA: Write to employer and say that, following advice, you are considering raising an employment tribunal. Ask them not to delete the security tape, since the appearance of the customer will be key to your case.

LadyMissA

slim1690 wrote: »

Two points here, Firstly the person I served was NOT actually underage, thats what sticks in my throat, and I'd love to not mention my previous job but how do I account for the six years of my life between leaving education and now?

You can't lose a gap of 6 years on a CV as that looks worse.

Think of all the good things you have done at the job over the 6 years and be honest.

I have no idea how old you have to be to bet so if they were legally allowed to bet then I do not see the problem but if you have to ask all customers their age you can say it was a momentary lapse. Everyone makes a mistake at work or we wouldn't be normal.

slim1690

18 is the legal age to bet/enter the premises.

Think 21 is the policy to challenge all people who appear under 21 to prove they are over 18.

The test bettor was 19, but appeared to me to be similar age to myself (24-25)

Due to a low number of T21 challenges in the shop (very quiet shop low footfall) and the fact that I was reading the newspaper/sending a text at the time, the company decided it was deliberate negligence and failure to implement the policy.

I had received no previous audits personally (pass or fail) and in my dismissal letter I was informed that my shop (I was manager) had failed four previous audits (again I had received no information of this before except one fail by Deputy Manager, who was in the shop at the time of my failure also, but not sacked)

I went through the company appeal process and the appeal was rejected. I'm now going directly to ACAS and Employment Tribunal pending their advice.

LadyMissA

slim1690 wrote: »

18 is the legal age to bet/enter the premises.

Think 21 is the policy to challenge all people who appear under 21 to prove they are over 18.

The test bettor was 19, but appeared to me to be similar age to myself (24-25)

Due to a low number of T21 challenges in the shop (very quiet shop low footfall) and the fact that I was reading the newspaper/sending a text at the time, the company decided it was deliberate negligence and failure to implement the policy.

I had received no previous audits personally (pass or fail) and in my dismissal letter I was informed that my shop (I was manager) had failed four previous audits (again I had received no information of this before except one fail by Deputy Manager, who was in the shop at the time of my failure also, but not sacked)

I went through the company appeal process and the appeal was rejected. I'm now going directly to ACAS and Employment Tribunal pending their advice.

You admit to reading the paper and sending a text at time? Oh dear! That sounds even worse now. Why are you allowed to have your phone at your work station?

Torry_Quine

slim1690 wrote: »

18 is the legal age to bet/enter the premises.

Think 21 is the policy to challenge all people who appear under 21 to prove they are over 18.

The test bettor was 19, but appeared to me to be similar age to myself (24-25)

Due to a low number of T21 challenges in the shop (very quiet shop low footfall) and the fact that I was reading the newspaper/sending a text at the time, the company decided it was deliberate negligence and failure to implement the policy.

I had received no previous audits personally (pass or fail) and in my dismissal letter I was informed that my shop (I was manager) had failed four previous audits (again I had received no information of this before except one fail by Deputy Manager, who was in the shop at the time of my failure also, but not sacked)

I went through the company appeal process and the appeal was rejected. I'm now going directly to ACAS and Employment Tribunal pending their advice.

It does seem rather harsh if there have been no other disciplinary problems. However if you were the manager then higher standards are expected and reading and texting while working are also not good practice.

It was also very naive to think that any prospective employer wouldn't learn of your dismissal when the reference came from your previous employer but you know that now.

It may be a good idea to look at other areas of employent if the meeting on Monday ends in dismissal. At the meeting you should be contrite and say that this won't happen again.

slim1690

LadyMissA wrote: »

You admit to reading the paper and sending a text at time? Oh dear! That sounds even worse now. Why are you allowed to have your phone at your work station?

The only defence I could offer to that point is that I didn't have a staffroom or staff area in the shop away from the counter. The CCTV clearly shows me still making eye contact with the test bettor and serving her in the correct way. The deputy manager was also in the shop and reading a newspaper but he was not sacked despite previously failing a similar audit just 4 months previously.

LadyMissA

slim1690 wrote: »

The only defence I could offer to that point is that I didn't have a staffroom or staff area in the shop away from the counter. The CCTV clearly shows me still making eye contact with the test bettor and serving her in the correct way. The deputy manager was also in the shop and reading a newspaper but he was not sacked despite previously failing a similar audit just 4 months previously.

How do you know they failed too? IF they did I am sure they have to apply (if it was for this reason only) the same discpline to all staff or there could be unfair dismissal maybe?

slim1690

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It does seem rather harsh if there have been no other disciplinary problems. However if you were the manager then higher standards are expected and reading and texting while working are also not good practice.

It was also very naive to think that any prospective employer wouldn't learn of your dismissal when the reference came from your previous employer but you know that now.

It may be a good idea to look at other areas of employent if the meeting on Monday ends in dismissal. At the meeting you should be contrite and say that this won't happen again.

Having contacted other companies in the immediate aftermath of my dismissal, I received many knockbacks, companies saying they won't go near anyone dismissed from another firm or in dispute with another firm, so I took the chance on this one in the hope they wouldn't do a thorough reference check. I still hope that's the case and that the meeting on Monday is something completely unrelated, but if it isn't, I struggle to see where I'm going to get another job, which is unfair, because unlike a lot of people I don't want to be claiming benefits, I want to work and that's what I've done since I was 18.

LadyMissA

slim1690 wrote: »

Having contacted other companies in the immediate aftermath of my dismissal, I received many knockbacks, companies saying they won't go near anyone dismissed from another firm or in dispute with another firm, so I took the chance on this one in the hope they wouldn't do a thorough reference check. I still hope that's the case and that the meeting on Monday is something completely unrelated, but if it isn't, I struggle to see where I'm going to get another job, which is unfair, because unlike a lot of people I don't want to be claiming benefits, I want to work and that's what I've done since I was 18.

is the other job for another betting firm?

slim1690

LadyMissA wrote: »

How do you know they failed too? IF they did I am sure they have to apply (if it was for this reason only) the same discpline to all staff or there could be unfair dismissal maybe?

That was my argument. They state that "The level of any sanction awarded and action following a breach is dependent on the specifics of each case and any mitigating circumstances that may exist." The same staff member that previously failed was then used as another reason for my dismissal as in his investigation he stated that "he was not confident that the shop team implemented Think 21 to the required standard"

Surely if I get sacked, and he failed before and was in the shop at the same time as this fail, saw the test bettor and also decided to not ask for ID, then he should be sacked as well?