- This topic has 22 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
The company is William Hills
The shop is in Duke Street Brighton
This event occured last month.
This is the version that the manager told his ex fellow workers.The manager of the above shop has been with the company for many years and was due to retire in a few months time.
He would never be the best manager of a betting shop but on the same score he would not be the worst.
In the above shop here are 2 x F.OB.T. machines right by the entrance and a further 1 half way up the narrow shop with the counter at the far end.
So it would be difficult to judge from behind the counter the age of any player on the FOBT machines by the entrance especially as this one was wearing a hoodie.
The person staked £20.00 in the FOBT machine by the entrance and promptly lost.
He then went up to the counter and asked to speak to the manager he apparently said ‘I am under age and should not have been allowed to use the machines and I want my £20.00 back’.
The manager told him he could not just refund the lost money and whilst he agreed he did not challenge the age of the person he said he thought he looked over 20 years old.
The person complained to the head office and there was an enquiry launched.
The outcome was the manager was told he had commtited the worst breach of company rules and he could either resign and keep some of his company pension or face the sack and also the possibilty of losing the part of his pension that Hills had contributed for him.
He panicked and chose to resign and this offer was taken up by the company straight away.
Now the plot thickens as whilst this <b>alleged</b> breach of company rules took place in the morning before racing had started there just so happened to be 1 witness in the shop.
It just so happened by bad luck <u>or design</u> that the expert witness was one of the Mystery Shoppers that most of the big chains use to keep staff on their toes!
Now whilst the Mystery Shoppers are meant to enquire about obscure bets and note whether the shop is clean and tidy this one wrote out a full statement informing Hills that the manager failed to demand proof of age of someone who apparently was around 6 foot tall and wearing a hoodie and playing a FOBT machine at the far end of the shop by the front door.
If this is true picture of what occured and most beleive it is Hills are a disgrace.
The ALLEGED incident is very puzzling. I would have thought CCTV replays might have been used to vindicate the manager.
The inference that this was a set-up to get rid of someone is, I suggest, a stretch of the imagination too far. I can think of easier ways to skin a cat.
I suppose the manager feels he has to give an explanation for his departure to his former colleagues and though the Company might have guaranteed his confidentiality, the same might not apply to him.
Is there not a Health and Safety issue here, i.e. vulnerable staff member working on their own. Surely he could have emphasised that for security reasons, though he was aware of the ‘hoodie’ playing the machine the fact that the ‘mystery shopper’ was also there, and also a stranger, he was in fear of a potential robbery and this stopped him from challenging the machine player’s age. Wasn’t he a member of the union?
All seems a bit harsh to me and I’d treat it with a pinch of salt. Maybe someone was building up a nest-egg for their retirement.
KI agree with Ethan. This isn’t something someone should be asked to forfeit a pension over. A report in yesterday’s
Post
showed that his actions were no worse than 98% of his contemporaries.
He should seek advice.
- Total Posts 17716
I blame William Hill 100%. A shop manager has a busy life and albeit the shop was quiet he has enough to do with watching every person who walks in the door.
If William Hill were doing their public duty they would employ a security guard from opening time to closing time.
A manager can’t be doing three things at the one time.This guy should seek legal advice especially if he has mentioned this has been a problem in the past. Even if he hasn’t there is a very good chance he could win his case. The first question Hills would be asked is are you taking every precaution possible to ensure this doea not happe. I doubt if any judge would agree lumping the resposibility on to te manager is taking every precaution possible
I know when I was working in Scotland Ladbrokes employed a security company in Parkhead Glasgow and no doubt in other areas too.
This seems a bit dodgy and all too convenient to me.
I would venture that the manager has been set up.
Mystery "shoppers" tend to enter the premises during racing – though they can, as I know, be present any time during opening hours.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
He should seek advice.
The overwhelming impression, assuming the story is reasonably accurate, is that he certainly shouldn’t have resigned. Given the story as stated I’m surprised he resigned and wonder if it was either forced to or it was done on the spur. I would suggest if the story is as presented here then he has a strong case for ‘constructive dismissal’.
When the ‘offender’ claimed to be under-age, I wonder if the manager sought proof that he was under-age? It could conceivably have been possibly he was ‘trying in on in reverse’ as it were.
Rob
Been doing some enquiring. It is not just William Hills.
Other bookmakers are doing the same thing.The manager hasn’t a leg to stand on it would seem. The gambling commision, not the mystery shopper are the ones involved here.
They visit shops with said teenager in tow and then test the manager and staff to ascertain whether they are following set guidelines.
He was set up and his failure to ask for id in this instance has left him wide open for the sack – or so it would seem.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
This is the version that the manager told his ex fellow workers.
If
this is true picture of what occured and most beleive it is Hills are a disgrace.
This is too one sided and don’t think it really should be named and shamed. Would be alright without Firm’s Name on it. O.K. I am being a policeman again.
But to give only the aggrieved person’s view is unfair on Firm’s Name. How do we know this is what happened? How do we know this was not "the last straw" and the manager had a string of ofences to his name?
We all like to think the little man is being badly treated by the big bad bookie. But how do we know this is the case?
Mark
Value Is EverythingYes, the Company Name, has implications and needs to be edited/deleted. A pub/off license licensee would suffer the same consequence if they were serving to underage. Maybe the former manager should consider himself lucky that he didn’t end up in the dock.
We all like to think the little man is being badly treated by the big bad bookie. But how do we know this is the case?
Mark
Hi Mark,
As far as I am aware the GC exercise that was carried out was a 17 year old and was asked to place bets. The result was that out of 100 shops he placed bets in 98 of them.
I would say that if the 98 managers had been sacked for this then it was fair to say the man in question was not treated unfairly.However as we’ve not heard of another 97 who have been sacked I would say he has been badly treated.Were all 98 cases in exactly the same circumstances? We don’t know.
Am not saying I am on the side of the Firm Ethan, just I don’t like to pre-judge these things. Certainly not without hearing both sides of the arguement and feel it is unfair to have just one side’s case on this forum.
The name of the firm should be deleted from the original post (imo) and any post since. There is no reason to "name and shame" until all details are known.
Mark
Value Is EverythingAppalling atttiude by Hills, Not a similar scenario, but we have a corals local to me which has been hit several times inconvenience to big days racing and were robbed on the last day of the Cheltenham and Aintree meeting.
Corals immediately set up an investigation into the manager being involved who had been with the company for 15 years, she was conveniently off on the days of the robberies.
After investigation of over 4 weeks, the company Corals decided to give her an ultimatum that they felt this was an inside job and they did not vindicate her but suggested that she could resign from her position as they find this very suspicious.
Now can they do this, did they have validated grounds to ask her to resign because they had a cause to believe that she was involved
Would she have valid grounds to take corals to court, as she now feels she was bullied out of her position and was not involved in the robberies.
We should all write to Wm Hill HQ and tell them that if this turns out to be 100% accurate then we will never have a bet with their company again.
Bookmakers are in a tricky situation and probably are not going the right way about it.
The Gambling Comission now makes the law for bookmakers and what acts they must enforce.
RULE 3
To Protect Children and Vulnerable People being harmed or affected by Gambling.
Where they need to enforce staff to challenge suspected people under the ages of 21 to be asked for identification.
If they don’t ask then the license holder is at risk from jail and having certain shops shut down who fail to live up to the acts.
To be honest if the Gambling Commission are prepared to employ plants then surely they can emply security or forcee bookmakers to use them.
- Total Posts 438
Is there not a Health and Safety issue here, i.e. vulnerable staff member working on their own. Surely he could have emphasised that for security reasons, though he was aware of the ‘hoodie’ playing the machine the fact that the ‘mystery shopper’ was also there, and also a stranger, he was in fear of a potential robbery and this stopped him from challenging the machine player’s age.
That’s a very good point. There are too many betting shop staff working on their own these days and it wouldn’t be reasonable to ask them to leave the relative safety of their work area to cross the floor and enquire about someone’s age, leaving themselves open to attack and the shop at the mercy of robbers.
As far as the Gambling Commission goes, they seem hell-bent on driving this "Think 21" policy through but seem to have little idea on how difficult it is to implement in real life. My betting shop manager, who I have known for many years, says that he receives updates on underage gambling almost every day and has his area manager phoning and briefing every week, but those upstairs seem somewhat distanced from reality if they believe that betting shop staff have nothing better to do than to challenge everyone who comes in through the door for proof of age.
I am confident that the facts are correct that is why I named the company and the shop concerned.
Hills unlike Ladbrokes regulary staff shops in Brighton with one member of staff.
I cannot speak for other areas of the country but a member of my family works for Hills as a relief manager and he often has to open /close the shop in the evening (9.30 at night) on his own and manage alone during meal breaks and it was him that told me the story.
It may well be the mystery shopper was planted by agents acting on behalf of the Gambling Commision as from what I understand most managers are able to sniff out the Mystery Shopper by the questions they ask without ever placing a bet!
- Total Posts 17716
No doubt this guy had a contract of employment and that will have covered this even so they could sack him.
The funny think about any contract is a court can overule an part of them if deemed unfair.
How many people do you see go into bookies between the age of 18 and 25?
The only way a manager can be 100% sure is ask for photographic ID from everyone of them.
That is a complete nonsense to expect a manager to do that and the fact the shop was quiet should not come into it.
If a bookmaker is doing his part they must have security doing that.
Hills would have a helluva job winning a case if there are shops being opened and closed by one person.
Go to a top lawyer get him to call them and say I have no option but advise my client to go to the newspapers. They’ll sh!t a brick.
Spies? guys openeing shops alone when several have been robbed?, a possible set up,hint hint? no real effort from them to try and stop underage gambling? Guy loses his pension? The papers would have a field day.
Got to be more to it than this as they would surely have taken legal advise before sacking im
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.