Was Waitrose being U?

[Settlethewreckage]

Just returned from Waitrose after having been refused a bottle of wine. DH (30) and I (27) wanted to celebrate our wedding anniversary by buying a fancy bottle of wine, so we went to Waitrose and picked one (along with some other stuff). At the till DH gets asked for ID, no problem. Cashier then asks me for mine, which I didn't have on me. So now we can't have this bottle of wine, because he can't confirm my age.

I'm angry. The manager said it made sense to ask us both as we 'look a similar age'. Yet they know DH is 30! To make matters worse, DH is now not able to buy alcohol at that store today and tomorrow because 'they know we are together'.

AIBU to think that this was ridiculous? Yes, I could have gone and fetched my ID from home, but by then I was already fuming, so I left the stuff and went to Sainsbury's.

Well why don’t supermarkets just say that no alcohol will be sold to an adult shopping with a child whether that child is 15yrs or 15mths?

And I ask again, would the store be happy with a cashier who took this stance or would be be told by their manager that they’re being unreasonable because stores can’t have it both ways. They can’t be vague then be annoyed if their staff exercise a blanket ban.

If I was a cashier and I was disciplined for selling alcohol to a parent with a young child I would be taking them to tribunal over it. If I lost I would appeal, if they would not allow the appeal, I’d apply to the court directly. DH has dealt with stuff like this (no cashier/alcohol related) and Court takes a dim view of companies who dismiss based on rules which are unclear or unobtainable.

Just to be clear, I don’t for one minute blame the cashier not would I ever give them any abuse. And it’s not just the ‘rule’ that’s frustrating but how random it is and how I never know whether I can buy the wine or not.

Oh and thank you @FlopsyMopsyRabbit for your detailed reply.

I’m not sure you could legally argue that I’m more likely to buy alcohol for my 15yr old than my 12yr old or my 9yr old. Which is why I have a problem. If I’m going to let my 15yr old have alcohol, why wouldn’t I let my 9yr old have it? Or my baby.

So, I’d flag up as a proxy if I paid cash for a 4 pack of beer if I had a 5yr old with me? Because I think it’s unacceptable for a cashier to allow me that and not allow my wine within my shop with my 15yr old. I would far rather they allowed me both of neither and I can’t see any justification for allowing one and not the other.

If I was a cashier and I was disciplined for selling alcohol to a parent with a young child I would be taking them to tribunal over it.

You might want to read up on grounds for going to a tribunal (plus how much it costs). It's not that easy and frankly why is it down to the cashier to make this stand?

And yes. The policy is that managers will always back the staff when they've asked for ID. Always.

Which is why I have a problem. If I’m going to let my 15yr old have alcohol, why wouldn’t I let my 9yr old have it? Or my baby.

Really?

And I ask again, would the store be happy with a cashier who took this stance or would be be told by their manager that they’re being unreasonable because stores can’t have it both ways. They can’t be vague then be annoyed if their staff exercise a blanket ban.

Manager would back the cashier at the time. (I have backed up cashier who refused someone without ID when I had been to their 21st party). Staff member would then be retrained if it was a repeat issue, they may be coached/shadowed by a more experienced cashier. It's a judgement call by the cashier and nobody is perfect at their job 100% of the time.

So, I’d flag up as a proxy if I paid cash for a 4 pack of beer if I had a 5yr old with me? Because I think it’s unacceptable for a cashier to allow me that and not allow my wine within my shop with my 15yr old. I would far rather they allowed me both of neither and I can’t see any justification for allowing one and not the other.

Personally, I wouldn't refuse either, however if 15 yr old picked the bottle off of the shelf, had a discussion about what one they wanted, gave you money etc. then I would refuse.

So, should the shops stop selling orange juice, or fruit, to under 18s, just in case they decide to ferment them??

That’s a completely erroneous comparison and you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Orange juice is not alcoholic at the time shops sell it, low alcohol products are. Lots of things can be made into alcoholic drinks of varying strengths but if they’re not alcoholic at the point of sale they’re not subject to the legislation governing alcohol.

You have grounds for taking your case to a tribunal if you feel you have been unfairly dismissed.

The point is, if it’s subject to your employment T&Cs then it cannot be vague. My DHdesls with contracts that are squashed and ridiculed all the time due to their lack of clarity or because they asked someone to do something that wasn’t reasonably possible. They need to own the policy and turn the proof burden the other way so decide than unless there was clear evidence it was a proxy sale, then it’s reafonable to assume not or that all sale of alcohol will be prohibited to any person in the company of a minor. Putting the onus on the cashier to make a random guess when their job is on the line is ridiculous.

The store were being a little bit U. It's a balance between complying with the law and thoroughly pissing off customers. If they get either or both wrong frequently there won't be any customers to piss off.

I do think the policy of stopping you purchasing alcohol when you have a child with you is completely unreasonable though, unless the cashier has overheard something to intimate that you are buying it for the child/teenager. It has never happened to me - yet, though I am 43 and have been IDed in Waitrose and M&S recently. I'm not flattered and do clearly look in my 40s, but also I always have my driving licence in my purse.

You have grounds for taking your case to a tribunal if you feel you have been unfairly dismissed.
In certain circumstances and if you can afford the costs. You can't go to a tribunal because you were disciplined, which is what you already said.

And the policy is expressed exactly as the law is. In which case the law is unclear. Maybe I, as a minimum wage checkout operator, should challenge the UK law makers?

Why is it up to the employees to fight this? If customers aren't happy then they could challenge it in court, no?

Slashlover, I understand you saying you’d serve both but what extra training would be offered to a cashier who refused both? That’s the crux of it all. Is the training telling them to look and see if a teenager is choosing? Paying? Hanging around outside? Is it just teenagers? Would a manager be happy for a bunch of cashiers to all say no to every sale where a child was present? I mean, if their job is on the line and the rules are so vague, how are they to protect themselves other than to always refuse.

I’m always just annoyed at how random it is. But after this thread I’m going to talk to DH tonight (he’s in employment law) and ask him what the legal situation would be for cashiers involved. I know it seems like I’m only seeing this from my POV, but actually I’m wondering what legal protection the cashier has and whether it is fully legal and reasonable for large organisations to place the burden of responsibility onto a cashier whilst providing them with such a vague frame of reference.

It's similar to the law about it being illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. People could argue that if you have had one drink in a bar the you are drunk. Or do you count it someone has had more than the recommended daily allowance? Is it more than the drink driving limit?

If someone can barely walk then it's obvious but what if they trip slightly? Cashier have to make that judgement call constantly.

They need to own the policy and turn the proof burden the other way so decide than unless there was clear evidence it was a proxy sale, then it’s reafonable to assume not or that all sale of alcohol will be prohibited to any person in the company of a minor.

Where I worked, we had training every 6 months and coaching when someone started. For the first few weeks they needed a supervisor to authorise every purchase. Also, not policy - the LAW.

I am 28 and seriously look about 14 (not kidding). I always get ID'd in supermarkets/shops etc even for lottery! I just give them my driving license and get on with it. However, I get a food delivery once every 2 weeks with at least 6 bottles of wine and beer and not once have I been ID'd at my door and I am usually home alone when they deliver. Weird.

Slashlover, I understand you saying you’d serve both but what extra training would be offered to a cashier who refused both?

We had computer training, coaching. We'd have conversations abut why they were refusing everyone. We'd go over the things to looks out for.

Is the training telling them to look and see if a teenager is choosing? Paying? Hanging around outside? Is it just teenagers?

Yes. Yes. Yes. (we used to write in a refusal book if we moved people on from outside the shop). Anyone who looks like they are underage and are in the age group who are likely to want alcohol, despite previous comments, the likelihood of someone buying for a baby is miniscule.

Would a manager be happy for a bunch of cashiers to all say no to every sale where a child was present? I mean, if their job is on the line and the rules are so vague, how are they to protect themselves other than to always refuse.

Again, it's a judgement call and nobody is buying alcohol for a 5 year old. HOWEVER, people did try to purchase 12/15/18 DVDs and were refused.

TheWaiting

I think you are fixating on this.

Has there been multiple cases of a sale being refused to an adult accompanied by a 5 year old?

I try to use my judgement but I do worry with every sale. If it's an adult with a week's shopping and a young teen helping to pack I won't ask. If the child looks mid teens and they are buying alcopops or cheap cider I will watch more closely - does the child say something, are they putting it to one side etc. It's a tightrope.

The problem is that it's down to individual perception.
So who I think looks 18 or 25 someone else will not.
If someone disagrees with me, I have to defend that, regardless of the actual age of the person concerned.
Every premises has to have an age verification policy, it's a mandatory license condition. Challenge 21 and 25 are considered 'best practice'. As a retailer of alcohol, you have to prove this is in place and being actively used. If you don't age challenge someone, and it's flagged up, you have to defend your decision because you've not stuck to the challenge policy in place, and yes, management will throw you under the bus. It doesn't matter if the person is over 18, if you have an age verification policy in place and it's not being followed, then a condition of the license is broken.
That can lead to conditions placed on the license.
That could obviously lead to the shop assistants judgement being queried because of the possibility of an underage sale happening. Probably at least disciplinary action, for not following the legally required (the choice of which is up to the company, so) company policy.

The company and management are covered - they have adhered to the law, it's the actual person serving it that has to defend their decision, against someone else's perception.

The training is minimal too, and so you're in fear of losing your job for not even breaking the law, but breaking a policy that is required to get a license.
It's no wonder that when selling alcohol people are over cautious really, it seems to me like the laws and policies have been designed so that the government look like they're doing their bit, the retailer looks like they're doing their bit, and the front line staff take all the risk, and all the crap when they try and reduce that risk.

I just think the policy is too random. If you won’t allow me a bottle of wine within my shop because I have my teenager with me then you shouldn’t sell it to me if I have my 9yr old with me. I think if all cashiers followed this then shops would place pressure in government to produce something less vague. Also, if the cashier was not held personally responsible then they’d likely use their judgement more rather than think, ‘well there’s a tiny chance this wine is for that child so I must refuse.’

TheWaiting

Yes, we all agree with you. Meanwhile, it's the law and we have to abide by it, even if we all think bits of it are stupid.

but why not just refuse all alcohol sales where a minor is present? I’m fairly sure this would lead to tighter clarification.

I work in a bar, and it’s even more confusing. I cannot allow adults to buy alcohol for their children on my premesis, so I often have to count the alcoholic drinks they are having, and the number of people on their table. When we are busy this is sometimes impossible. Alcopops, shandies and half pints of beer tend to raise my suspicions when there is a 15/16/17 year old in the group. I have asked for a wristband system, ID checks on the door and then only serve alcohol to someone with a wristband. This would solve the problem, but wouldn’t be practical in a supermarket.

How can you not see that a 15/16 year old is more likely to be drinking alcohol than a 9 year old?

What rules would you like to see introduced then? No alcohol to anyone with kids ever? ID every single person? Not care if someone is buying alcohol for someone underage?

And the point I’m making is when 1000s of people are all left to interpret a law in different ways then that law becomes pointless and should be challenged. It will only be challenged if it starts to affect those at the top and that would happen if all cashiers refused all sales where children were present.

How can you not see that a 15/16 year old is more likely to be drinking alcohol than a 9 year old?

Whenever there’s a thread on here about cake in lunchboxes, people argue that it’s too unworkable and vague to say leave it up to the discretion of lunch staff and absolutely not on to ever suggest the home made oat biscuit should be allowed but not the shop bought biscuit.

The law and its enforcement is not best served by interpretation, especially by the general public.

@As476

Add to that the 16/7 year olds allowed to drink beer/wine/cider with a meal and that some people's interpretation of meal is a bag of crisps........
And the belief that by law you must serve alcohol if it's not illegal, and hang the company policies you can be fired for......

So I wouldn't be losing my job because of making a poor judgement call but because sales dropped drastically? So no single parents could have a drink ever?

There is no law which could be brought in which could satisfy everyone.

TheWaiting

I just don't see it's the responsibility of check out staff to cause untold problems in their jobs in order to challenge a law that you don't like.

If you have such a problem with it why don't you challenge it instead of expecting people on £8 an hour risking their jobs so you can buy a bottle of wine when you've got your child with you?