sacked...

bluenoseam

To everyone saying "it's policy not law" - that policy forms part of the OP's terms & conditions of employment, he failed in implementing that policy & as a result has been punished.

While he may have believed the person was over age, ultimately the company deciding that there was reasonable cause for doubt (i.e. to someone in the company the subject looked younger than 21) has decided it should have been an ID case. Now while that is subjective, it's also fair to say that most people who work in that sort of environment are careful. I was ID'd during the weekend of the Grand National at 27 years of age and not looking under 18 since i was around 14 years of age, i just accepted it, showed my ID and got on with it. I've also ID'd someone at nearly 40 years of age for an 18 rated DVD because she looked atleast to me to be borderline under 25, knowing & fearing the punishments.

There's also the secondary factors as have been mentioned, shop manager & the obvious distraction in play - which in it's own right could likely be cause for disciplinary. Like i said, has the guy been treated bluntly, yeah, but ultimately his mistake had potential to be a massive one which could have cost his employer significant sums of money.

micflair_2

mynameistallulah wrote: »

The retailer's policy is that ID must be asked for where the customer appears to be under 21. The fact that the individual was over 18 is irrelevant.

This is correct, however the 3 year difference between 18 and 21 is very hard to guess correctly. Our company has changed the 21 to 25 now, to give a bit more flexibility so to say. So if the cashier thinks they are younger than 25 they then ask.

In this case the actual buyer was 19. If he was late 19, almost 20 then how on earth was the OP supposed to suss out a years difference in age?

If the buyer was 16 then its fairly obvious that he's nowhere near 21. But 19 (maybe late 19's for all we know) then he didnt stand much chance. The company should raise there target to 25 years to avoid this mistake.

CKhalvashi

DCFC79 wrote: »

By sounds of it I think its like what the shops have to do with trading standards and police, asking for ID if they look under a certain age eg 21, refuse sale/transaction if NO ID/ID turns out to be for another person

I was told that my DL was not me last week :eek:

The photo may be almost 10 years old, but I'm certainly over the age of 18! How does one go in that situation, then?

CK

Macca83_2

mynameistallulah wrote: »

The retailer's policy is that ID must be asked for where the customer appears to be under 21. The fact that the individual was over 18 is irrelevant.

And as the poster said, the customer appeared to be 24/25. Policy followed.

Tiddlywinks

slim1690 wrote: »

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.

The fact that you were the manager makes a big difference - you were in a position where you should have set an example and made absolutely sure that you followed all company procedures.

Add in the situation of you reading a paper and using your phone whilst serving??? That's pretty unprofessional.

How come you weren't aware of a previous failure in your shop? You should have been told so that you could manage the re-education and implementation for the member of staff that failed to comply.

I think there's more to this than you're telling us...

Tiddlywinks

micflair wrote: »

......In this case the actual buyer was 19. If he was late 19, almost 20 then how on earth was the OP supposed to suss out a years difference in age?

If the buyer was 16 then its fairly obvious that he's nowhere near 21. But 19 (maybe late 19's for all we know) then he didnt stand much chance. The company should raise there target to 25 years to avoid this mistake.

BUT the policy was to check the age and the OP didn't do that... as you say, it is very subjective to guess someone's age BUT he was the manager and how much effort would have been involved in just asking one more question?

Back covering - and why some Tesco staff play extra safe and ask for proof of age from people even nearing pension age!

lmp0507

My mother got asked for ID to buy some booze at the supermarket, She's 50, she looks young for her age, but blimey, not that young!
.. needless to say she was delighted.

Savvy_Sue

slim1690 wrote: »

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.

Is that normal behaviour? Do you not stop what you're doing to serve a customer?

slim1690 wrote: »

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?

Is it usual for you and your colleagues to 'interfere' or butt into each other's interactions with customers? I don't mind if the person serving me checks my age, I'd be bemused if a colleague did so, unless you then explained that there was some training going on.

Macca83 wrote: »

If the policy is called Think 21 and you don't think the customer looks under 21, i don't see how they can sack you. Their whole policy is very subjective. Someone that looks under 21 to one member of staff, may look older to a another member. How can they say that you've failed the audit if you're perfectly within their policy guidelines. There's a huge hole in their logic and if it was me, i wouldn't let this lie.

I do agree with that, in fact. My sons are 21, 23 and 25, and although I think the eldest does now look like a proper grown up, there were a few years where you'd have been hard pressed to sequence them correctly. Especially when one or other of them grew a beard.

FBaby

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

The fact that you were the manager makes a big difference - you were in a position where you should have set an example and made absolutely sure that you followed all company procedures.

Add in the situation of you reading a paper and using your phone whilst serving??? That's pretty unprofessional.

How come you weren't aware of a previous failure in your shop? You should have been told so that you could manage the re-education and implementation for the member of staff that failed to comply.

I think there's more to this than you're telling us...

I totally agree with this. It is highly likely that you were sacked not for not implementing the policy, but for failing your role as a manager. If you can't adhere to a very serious policy yourself, how can the company be confident that the rest of the staff will?

I think your best bet on Monday is to come totally clean, admit your failing, and said that you've learned a lot more from your very costly error than you would have otherwise and you are now most likely if anything to be much more careful and strict about applying the policy than any other manager who have never faced disciplinary actions.

In many ways, it is a pity you didn't come clean from the start, but I understand you wanted to take the chance. They might buy the above (after all it is true that you are probably much more self aware now), but they might now have more of an issue that you've tried to keep it from them. I would continue to apply for such job, but come clean at the interview trying to turn it as much as possible in your favour.

jobbingmusician

micflair wrote: »

This is correct, however the 3 year difference between 18 and 21 is very hard to guess correctly. Our company has changed the 21 to 25 now, to give a bit more flexibility so to say. So if the cashier thinks they are younger than 25 they then ask.

In this case the actual buyer was 19. If he was late 19, almost 20 then how on earth was the OP supposed to suss out a years difference in age?

OP, if you are considering an ET, then this red bit is very important to you. I think you have a case (I should stress I am an employer, not a lawyer). IMHO the employer's reaction was not reasonable, assuming that you were sacked simply on the Think 21 issue, not the reading a newspaper at work issue*. You DID apply Think 21, you judged the customer to be 24. Another company has already acknowledged the problems with age differences and changed their policy as a result, to avoid just the sort of problem you are experiencing. PM micflair and ask who the other company are!

*As you may imagine from my signature, I spend a lot of time in bookies shops. (Not gambling! :rotfl:) - and I also mystery shop them. The mystery shopping always involves a Think 21 question, but does NOT ask (directly) whether staff were phoning on their own phone, or reading a paper. I think reading a paper is completely defensible on the long shifts these staff work, and after all, it could have been the Racing Post! Staff are supposed to give customers priority, but it does not seem to have been at issue that the customer was given sub-optimal service, simply that the Think 21 was not applied. And the OP says it was - and I have no reason to doubt them. It is not clear to me whether this was just a routine mystery shop, or a check done directly by the company. And I don't expect the OP knows. If it was the former, I don't suppose for a moment that the company employing the shopper has even seen them, for a moment. Or checked their age, for that matter! :eek: (although it seems that the customer shows on the CCTV tape).