sacked...

maninthestreet

We only have the OP's word that the test purchaser appeared to be 24 - surely a test purchaser would have been chosen who looked under 21 when testing the establishment's adherence to the 'Think 21' policy??

Faith177

As stated in my post this is not always the case that's why I suggested he try and challenge this. I have know several TS checks that have failed because of this rule

WelshBluebird

maninthestreet wrote: »

We only have the OP's word that the test purchaser appeared to be 24

Which surely is all that matters?
As the think 21 policy is that if the member of staff thinks the person is under 21.

beccaa

I work for Ladbrokes where we receive think 21 visits regularly from the company, failure will result in a warning or possible dismissal. It is the shop managers responsibility that all staff including themself follow the think 21 policy and failure by anyone will result in the staff member and the shop manager being pulled in in my area as it is seen that the manager is not training their staff well enough in the policy. I know from experience and from training the people sent in to carry out the audits are very obvious and have a baby face. No one could possibly think the person is over 21 whether you are 18 or 40. They dont do it to catch you out, they do it to make sure you are doing your job properly and wont endager the shop license.
I do feel sorry for you being sacked, but as the shop manager you have a huge responsibility in these things.

debrag

wouldn't they already have a reference if they have given you the job and you've already started?

slim1690

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 admit to being unprofessional sending a text.

I was aware of ONE previous failure in the shop because that's the only information I received, there have been five different Area Managers in the three years I've been manager and a lot of the time they offered little or no support with anything at all.

I have no reason to come on here and withhold information, what would I gain from doing that?

Fortunately enough for me, it appears that my new employer have not contacted my ex employer and I'm OK for now starting my new job, but still looking over my shoulder a little bit.

slim1690

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

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

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.

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.

I did put down my phone as the auditor approached the counter, proceeded to serve her, doing all the correct customer service things (eye contact, thanks, etc) - translated the bet into the system, then finished sending the text message.

The auditor was in the shop for a period of 5-10 minutes, firstly playing the gaming machines and then having an over the counter bet. Her report also said that staff made eye contact with her as she first entered the shop and was browsing. Therefore both myself and the other staff member had optimal opportunity to ask for ID, so either we BOTH believed her to be over 21, or we BOTH were negligent and should receive the same punishment.

slim1690

jobbingmusician wrote: »

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).

Just to confirm, it was a ServeLegal Think21 Audit, not a regular mystery shopper visit. ServeLegal are employed by the companies to do test bets and basically scare staff into asking everyone for ID despite the abuse we get for actually doing that.

I can confirm I was sacked for the Think 21 failure and that alone. I only found out about the previous Shop failures in the response letter to my Appeal after the hearing.

slim1690

maninthestreet wrote: »

We only have the OP's word that the test purchaser appeared to be 24 - surely a test purchaser would have been chosen who looked under 21 when testing the establishment's adherence to the 'Think 21' policy??

Surely it's subjective, if I think someone looks 24 you might think they looked 15 and someone else could think they look 30? My argument is my colleague in the shop with me at the time obviously either agreed with my perception that she was over 21, or was equally negligent and should suffer the same consequence.

slim1690

debrag wrote: »

wouldn't they already have a reference if they have given you the job and you've already started?

Well I'm not sure, maybe they haven't checked properly, I put down my ex employer as a reference contact details but I've not heard anything other than getting the job offer, I was only called in today for something unrelated, so I was sh*tting it for no reason all weekend...