sacked...

dacouch

Micflair does not work in a book makers but a retail shop.

I think the OP mentioned the shop had also failed four other age checks / audits

micflair_2

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

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!

Of course I agree with the policy, but the age gap here between a 21 year old and a possible late 19 year old is zero in `looks wise'. It would not have been the trading standards who sent the 19 year old in the buy something, as they would have sent a 17 year old in. So it was the company who sent someone in to test the store.

Whats to say the lad who came in wasn't 20 years and 364 days old? Would the op still be getting the sack then? I think the company should raise there limit to 25yrs old to avoid this situation. The problem then lies in the fact that the company would not be allowed to send a 17year old in to `test' it for themselves, I think they would get in bother for that - its the job of trading standards and the local council authority to do that.

But on the other side, just to be safe the OP as the manager of the store should have known better, and just to ID the lad anyway to cover his back. Retail places are big time on this at the mo, In the store I work all the department managers have had numerous meetings about this, I work on a department thats nowhere near the taking of money from customers - but yet its still as massive focus.

DCFC79

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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

No idea as ive never come across it, i guess asking them random details off the licence would be a start, thats 1 person who said your DL photo wasnt you but another person would say the opposite.

micflair_2

dacouch wrote: »

Micflair does not work in a book makers but a retail shop.

I think the OP mentioned the shop had also failed four other age checks / audits

Exactly. I think the OP as the manager of the betting shop has lost his job down to this, and not down to his own individual failure.

My manager of the store would also lose his job if this happened numerous times, regardless of who served the under age customer.

OP: Let us know exactly what it says in your dismissal papers so we can take a closer look at the exact reason.

Heres another way this works - we have members of staff who are constantly ringing in sick - but there is no way of proving they are not sick so we cannot discipline them. However, after X amount of time off sick we CAN discipline them for having a poor attendance record. The staff immediately claim we cant discipline them for being sick, at which point we say we are not - its for poor attendance. I think this kind of workaround has happened here, but in a slightly different scenario.

marleyboy

OP - Being sacked for a gross misconduct is bound to tar your employment records, your previous employer is likely to add they sacked you for a gross misconduct when asked by any potential employer.

Any company with a view of employing someone is going to want to know whether there are any risks in doing so, your reasons for leaving your previous job would be on the top of that assessment.

You could consider taking temporary or voluntary work, with a view of obtaining a new previous employer offering a clean reference, just be sure to not allow it to include another gross misconduct reference.

Good luck OP.

ktothema

From what I'm gathering in this steam:

OP is the manager of a bookies.

OPs branch has failed 3 or 4 Think 21 tests. It is unclear whether these are company or council tests or who failed them (OP pr other staff). However OP, despite being manager, has only been made aware of one of these incidents (until OPs sacking).

OPs branch gets tested again, this time OP is the server. OP does not have his eye on shop floor as he is playing with his phone and reading a paper. OP may or may not have ceased this activity on customer's approach. But OP looks at customer and judges customer to be over 21 and therefore doesn't ID.

OP is then sacked for gross negligence of not applying Think 21 but also of not applying this due to "deliberate negligence".


I think OP let himself down by doing what many other bookie workers do (not a frequent attendee of bookies but when I do I generally find someone on phone or reading. Like jobbingmusician says, it could be the racing post!). As I see this OP has been sacked for several reasons: not applying a subjective test, not paying due care or attention and thereby failing a subjective test and managing a store that regularly fails subjective tests.

My biggest concern over this is why, as manager, was OP not told of the other failures. OP hasn't been given the chance to correct an issue as he didn't know it was there. So OPs only real failure was to act as others do, rather than act better.

It could be argued that all three things show poor management but that's harsh if you aren't informed of problems.

flammingstarr_2

LadyMissA wrote: »

is the other job for another betting firm?

Are they able to PROVE that you did not ask/failed the audit? Ask them what evidence they have [ask them to put it in writing - they have to provide a written reason for dismissal under employment law] In addition, did they follow the correct dismissal procedures??
This is absolutely essential....A close friend is an employment law solicitor and I also have taken a former employer to employment tribunal for discrimination related to my pregnancy [and won!]........
In many, many cases you can be as guilty as hell but if they have not followed the correct/strict procedures relating to dismissal you can claim unfair dismissal. My friend once said that someone she represented was sacked for theft of company property, he was as guilty as hell but because they didn't have solid evidence and they did not follow correct procedures, he won compensation at tribunal.
I recommend you contact a solicitor and ACAS who are very helpful urgently. As for the reference, they have to be truthful so if they are asked on the reference form 'Was the person dismissed/subject to disciplinary procedures' they have to answer yes otherwise ask them to provide a 'basic' reference given dates of employment and position only. If you do decide to go down the tribunal route, you can agree a 'satisfactory/basic reference' at the negotiation stage. Also make sure you have copies of EVERYTHING. DO NOT speak to them on the phone, write or e-mail only, that way you have evidence of everything and they can't deny what they have said or lie which HR departments often do.
Hope that helps.

WelshBluebird

While the OP may have been wrong regarding the phone and paper issues, I think sacking for the Think 21 thing is crazy. If the member of staff thinks the customer is 21 or older, then the think 21 policy does not need to be applied (as the policy is to ID people if they look under 21!).

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 if the member of staff does not think the person looks under 21?

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

BUT the policy was to check the age and the OP didn't do that

Only if they think the person looks under 21.

CKhalvashi

DCFC79 wrote: »

No idea as ive never come across it, i guess asking them random details off the licence would be a start, thats 1 person who said your DL photo wasnt you but another person would say the opposite.

The point I was trying to make here is that I was 19 when that photo was taken (I 'flipped' from a Georgian DL, to an English one back in the days you could).

Random questions from the license would be a start, however I was also asked to bring the paper part in (which I don't even know where it is) along with a British passport (which I don't have or want; I'm in the UK on a Spanish one, as I lived in Spain for 5 years, and Georgia doesn't have the same agreement with the UK, meaning I'd lose my Georgian one.)

This was all over a bottle of Jack Daniels, in a store that I regularly shop.

CK

Faith177

Don't know if this is any help to you but you said tester looked 24 to you. For this policy to work the tester must be a true representation of their age so therefore if they look a lot older than 21 then you can challenge this. I know a girl in a pub I use to work for used this arguement and won her court case.