Archived Final Warning for a guest failing to sign a sales audit slip?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
177
A good friend of mine was put on a final warning today for failing to have a guest sign a sales audit slip (for $60-something). Is it typical to go right to a final warning for that? Just curious.
 
I can't say for certain on this instance, just that some actions will result in an instant Final Warning, which lasts a full 365 days.
 
i honestly have no idea what happens in that case.. but this happens quite often in our store and i've never heard of anything being done? Sounds like your store is CA happy this week...
 
YEP! Both of us were written up within an hour of each other, by the same exec.
 
Sounds like management is trying to get rid of you and your friend. You made someone mad.

I've never seem someone even CA'd for this. An STU maybe, but final'd for it is crazy.
 
YEP! Both of us were written up within an hour of each other, by the same exec.

Your ETL is a freaking moron. The *only* reason a guest needs to sign that slip is to prevent a chargeback. Basically - on the WAY off chance the guest actually calls her bank and wants to dispute the charge that Target made on her card - Target would be required to produce that slip with the signature on it, otherwise the bank would not pay Target the money that was charged on the card.

Again, it is extremely unlikely a guest is going to call their bank and do that.

Your ETL should have just reminded you to be more careful in the future.

Honestly, for something like this I would tell the ETL to f*** off and walk out the door.
 
It's either a) what Crohl pointed that the E is looking for reasons to sandbag the two of you or b) they have lost their tiny little minds.
 
I believe the only time a Sales Audit Slip is printed now is when the card was hand keyed into POS, an card authorization prompt, or the communication line to card authorization was down. There might be some audit slips for Tax Exempts and POs. But everything else should be down on the signature pads.

Back in the day before the digital signature pads, I have seen plenty of guests not sign the credit audit slips and no one complained.
 
did you sign final warning paperwork?
what was the extended period?

have you spoken to your stl about it? i know the stl knows theoretically, but i had a situation where an etl was coach happy and didnt fully explain the situation to the tm's benefit. after i spoke to the stl, the tm's final was thrown out.
 
question about these seek to understand messages...are they really seeking to understand, or are they just appearing to be sympathetic in order for you to make a statement that could be further used against you. I mean, say you are being respectful and acknowledging you have messed up, are they going to take what you said into consideration, or just use it as more evidence to put you on corrective action?
 
For what it's worth, I found an unsigned sales audit slip behind my register today. I showed it to the GSA and she didn't seem all that concerned.
 
question about these seek to understand messages...are they really seeking to understand, or are they just appearing to be sympathetic in order for you to make a statement that could be further used against you. I mean, say you are being respectful and acknowledging you have messed up, are they going to take what you said into consideration, or just use it as more evidence to put you on corrective action?

from the ones i've been involved with it's always a tm saying that another tm did/said something. In that case we do a seek to understand with the "accused" tm and if they deny it and there's no further proof we do a coaching and nothing is done. If they admit to doing it or there is more proof then just the he said/she said then it is a ca action. Almost every time i've been involved with a STU they had admitted to doing whatever it was.
 
are they put on corrective action at the same time as the STU, or do they get hit with it when they come in for their next shift?
 
if they've admitted to doing what they've done we tell them we're going to have to do a CA but it's never written before hand so we do have to do it later. If they don't and we have further proof and we decide it's enough then yes we do a CA later but i've never just done a STU and told them that was it.. I've always said what could happen so they're not just surprised with it later. The ones that i have been involved with are things that if i could i would personally fired them on the spot for it. So they shouldn't have been surprised they were in trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top