Customer driven profiling is a term that those who work for Alliance Boots will be familiar with but the principle should be familiar to everyone. In essence it is where a business need has been identified and a corresponding change to the working hours or pattern of an employee is proposed by the company to meet that need. When all parties agree, there is no problem and the employment contract is varied by mutual consent; however if the employee does not accept the proposals then in most cases a revised work pattern can only be imposed where a legitimate business objective exists and proportionate means are used to achieve this.
The PDA Union has been contacted by a number of pharmacists whose personal and family lives have been threatened with great disruption by the CDP exercise. Members report that business objectives put forward have been ill defined and little attention has been paid to the personal circumstances of the individual. Fortunately for these members the PDA Union has developed a very successful strategy to help members resist unwarranted changes and as a result has exposed serious failings in the processes being applied. In a number of cases the proposals have been dropped or substantially watered down in favour of the member.
Two recent cases highlight some of the problems encountered by members:
The Pharmacy must stay open all day
One company manager informed a PDA pharmacist member that “we need to ensure that we have [sic] 7 day mindset to ensure that the pharmacy is open for all trading hours of the store”. The pharmacist was informed that he would not be able to take a lunch break away from the store, but had to remain in the pharmacy all day. If he didn’t acquiesce to this demand he would either have to move onto the relief team or be dismissed from his employment. The pharmacist had always been flexible and took his lunch break to suit the business and was upset at being treated this way.
The PDA Union legal advisors knew that the company proposals were unlawful because this pharmacist merely wanted to take the breaks he is entitled to in his contract and under the relevant legislation. He could not be forced out of his place of work for exerting his statutory rights to have a break. He immediately sought the assistance of the PDA Union who attended a meeting with the employee and his manager. The company manager was ill prepared and even informed our member that there were no other pharmacies in the area which could accommodate his wish to have a lunch break. The pharmacist was left with a stark choice of either being forced to work through his lunch break or having his employment terminated.
The PDA Union representative made it clear the manager had got it badly wrong and his approach was untenable under employment law and prevented the pharmacist from complying with the Code of Ethics. A few days after the meeting there was a disturbing development when the manager remonstrated with our member both in the pharmacy consultation room and the tea room. Our member felt at one stage the manager was going to assault him and was so concerned by this behaviour a grievance was raised; the member was supported throughout by a PDA Union representative. The outcome of the grievance, heard at a senior level, was that the manager admitted to behaviour that could be seen as intimidating and assurances were given that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure he did not behave in the same way again. Also the threat to force our member out of the store was lifted pending the announcement that there was shortly to be a supportive company communication regarding pharmacist lunch breaks. Although this case was concluded several months ago, this communication has yet to be issued.
Changing weekend working hours; Boots say “sorry!”
Alliance Boots management were forced to admit that they got it hopelessly wrong by threatening a pharmacist with dismissal as part of the Customer Driven Profiling (CDP) project, if she wouldn’t move out of the store she had worked in for fifteen years. This debacle arose in a flagship store in the North of England, despite the availability of specialist employee relations staff to advise the management team on the process.
CDP is supposed to be a rigorous process with documented meetings and the manager is instructed to read from a carefully prepared script. Our member was put through the CDP process over the phone without even being informed of the nature or purpose of the discussions. One telephone call received at 7.30 am, was to discuss her working pattern. These calls were later represented as ‘informal’ meetings which constituted stage one and two of the CDP exercise and notes were purported to have been taken which our member was unaware of at the time.
The PDA member lost faith in her manager’s ability to handle the matter fairly at an early stage and declined to attend any further “informal meetings’ forming part of the CDP process because she believed the new working pattern had been predetermined. The company had failed to provide a valid business reason for wanting her to change from Sunday to Saturday working in a different location. They also failed to take into consideration the alternative proposals she had put forward or her personal family circumstances.
The pharmacist wrote to say that she did not want to attend a third informal meeting and would prefer to go straight to the next stage where she could bring along a PDA Union representative. Upon receipt of this letter, she was then threatened with a charge of gross misconduct (failing to follow a reasonable management instruction) if she would not meet informally to discuss the matter and faced being disciplined.
Finally the company agreed to a meeting conducted with the help of a PDA Union representative. Her complaints about the process she was put through were treated seriously and upheld unequivocally and she was informed she could retain her current role. Although rather late in the day, it was commendable that Alliance Boots were prepared to admit their failings and issue an apology.
The Company’s embarrassment was summed up when the manager who heard the grievance wrote “I would like to sincerely apologise to you for the fundamental failure to follow the company’s CDP guidance properly from the outset of this process and I am extremely disappointed that you have suffered so much distress as a result.”
John Murphy, PDA Union General Secretary commented “Thank goodness she sought expert advice from the PDA legal team. What worries me is how many others have been ridden roughshod over and given in to the constant pressure from management to change their working pattern regardless of their personal circumstances or whether there are even valid reasons for the change in the first place”
Article published in Insight Winter 2011