Seeking advice Think 21 policy

[markphillips]

Hi

A similar post was submitted by me approximately 1 month ago, however i am using this post to seek advice, and for views on my aim within my company regarding the think 21 policy.

I work for a company that operate a think 21 policy. After shocking test results from government testing, my company is charging its staff with gross misconduct if the think 21 policy is not adopted. The company is sending an 18 year old into branches to be served, and if he is not quesitoned for identification, the member of staff responsible will be charged with gross misconduct.

My belief is that an employee can adopt the think 21 policy, yet still serve the 18 year old if they believe him/her to be of 21 years old, thus improperly being charged with gross misconduct. As yet no appeals have been succesful, and 30+ members of staff have been suspended. the next step for the company is that they are threating its employees with dismissal.

Basically my aim is to bring an end to such punishment within the company based on these grounds, and possibly strip the punished employees of the suspension on their record.

I am seeking any advice at all that would be helpful and also your views on this subject.

Thanks.

 

[Hobbie]

Hi Mark,

This may seem like an odd answer, but I've been in a number of stores that apply the "Think 21 Policy" such as ASDA and Sainsbury. I've seen old men in the 50's (either in the 50's are had a VERY hard upbringing), the cashiers still ask for ID.

Could it not be helpful in asking ALL customers purchasing alcohol or 'intoxicating liquour' for ID, I spent a number of years in Sweden and it is standard when buying alcohol to always show a form of ID (driver licence or national id card), the customers don't even have to be prompted, generally giving the ID with the payment.

Just my thought on the matter, personally myself I don't mind having to show ID when making a purchase if challenged.

 

[markphillips]

That would be perfectly acceptable, if the policy of the company was that every person needs to show identification in order to gamble (its a bookmakers by the way!)

however that is not the policy, the policy is that if i as an employee believe somebody to be of 21 years of age i do not need to ask for id, yet people are being suspended even though claiming to adopt the policy while serving the under 21 year old, thus causing an imbalance of opinions. I just believe it to be so unfair, that an employee can now be dismissed for believing a customer is 21, where the company do not based purely on opinion, even though no unlawful act has been committed.

I do fully agree that either they should make it eg a think 50 policy, or All Must show ID policy. cheers.

 

[The Resolver]

Mark

I wote previously:-

"If someone has no other history to dismiss and is given a final warning for the 'offence' of not asking for ID from someone who is of age, then I would say he would have a good argument that such dismissal was unfair. ......That is intrinsically unfair and seems an abuse of Think 21's service. Different maybe if the phantom shopper was indeed under 18 and looked it but that is not the case here."

The above applies equally to a first warning. If the phantom shopper looked very much under age , then what is needed is guidance not disciplinary action.

I have PM'd you to set out the approach to take (which it is best not discussed here openly)

 

[Pinklady171082]

I too have recently been suspended for serving a 19 year old & not using the companies "think 21" policy. I have my disciplinary on Monday & am trying to put into words how unfair this situation is. I don't really know what to do & I feel very lost & stressed!

 

[doran89]

im another victim of this, i was suspended for 2 weeks in june for serving an 18yr old and not asking him for id. i thought it was unfair as i often ask for id but in this instance i thought that the person was over 21. In november i actually served a woman with a child which i did not notice and because of my earlier disciplinary i have been dismissed all together from the company. im now waiting for a date to make an appeal against the decision.

 

[stricks]

im another victim of this, i was suspended for 2 weeks in june for serving an 18yr old and not asking him for id. i thought it was unfair as i often ask for id but in this instance i thought that the person was over 21. In november i actually served a woman with a child which i did not notice and because of my earlier disciplinary i have been dismissed all together from the company. im now waiting for a date to make an appeal against the decision.

I have also recently been disciplined for failing to request i.d from a customer clearly over the age of 18 When at my meeting I pointed out that the law states I do not have to request i.d if I believe the customer to be over 18 I was told and I quote " we are not talking about the law here but a breach of company policy " I was shocked and stunned that although I was acting quite properly and within the parameters of the gambling commissions and governments guidelines I could actually face dismissal because of company policy ! Does not the 2 aforementioned sets of guidelines supercede any 1 companys set of guidelines on the same topic I would welcome any comments or advice on this subject