Achi news desk-
A major Canadian food retailer was fined thousands of dollars after one of its BC grocery stores sold wine to a 16-year-old girl.
BC’s Liquor and Cannabis Regulatory Branch posted details of the decision earlier this month, saying Loblaws Inc. on the hook for a sale made at a Real Canada Supermarket in Surrey last fall.
The grocery store is licensed to stock domestic and imported wine on its shelves, but must be purchased at counters specifically designated for liquor sales.
According to Dianne Flood, representative of LCRB’s general manager, two inspectors visited the store on September 14 for a routine inspection. They hired and brought in a “little agent,” who was 16 at the time.
The inspectors watched as the minor agent picked up a bottle of wine from the designated wine sales area of ​​the store and took it to the checkout, where they were directed to a specific deal. The cashier scanned the wine and told the agent the price. The agent handed over a $20 bill, received their change and left the store.
“At no time did the cashier ask the petty agent for identification,” Flood wrote in the decision, adding that petty agents are told not to try to defraud an employee, but simply say they don’t have identification if it is requested.
One of the inspectors then returned to the store and asked to see a manager, explaining the offences.
Company, manager claims ‘due diligence’
Although Loblaws and the store manager did not dispute that the cashier failed to ask the petty agent for identification, they did claim that the store did its due diligence in training its employee.
More than a dozen managers work in the store, and only staff with Serving It Right certification are allowed to sell liquor. Staff are also required to approve a policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages four times a year.
“The general manager knew the cashier and said she was a good employee and had been employed by (Loblaws) for 15 to 20 years,” the decision states. “The general manager was shocked that the cashier had sold to the small agent. When she asked the cashier about it, the cashier admitted she made the sale and did not ask for identification. The cashier said she had not been feeling’ n good and she should have called in sick.”
As a result of the offence, the cashier was suspended for two weeks, without pay, which marked the first time they had been disciplined.
According to the general manager, the point of sale machines have a prompt that reminds the cashier to check a buyer’s date of birth. However, that prompt can be overridden by pressing the computer’s “enter” key. A report from the system showed that the prompt was ignored about 70 percent of the time.
“The front-end manager attributed the low level of use of the stimulus to the lower number of sales made to younger people,” Flood wrote. “He said this was partly due to the older demographic of the establishment’s customer base and because the only liquor available was limited to wine; not beer or other hard drinks which younger buyers are more likely to be looking for. “
The LCRB decision explained that store policy used to require staff to ask for identification for anyone who appeared to be under 40 years of age. But in 2022, that policy changed, requiring staff to ask for identification from anyone who looked 25 or younger.
However, the front manager told the board she was telling staff to ask for ID from anyone who looked under 30.
“(Loblaws) concluded that the mistake in selling to the minor was human error, not a lack of training,” the decision states. “The cashier admitted she knew she should have asked for identification and that’s how she was trained.”
‘inadequate’ training
The LCRB’s decision said Loblaws appeared to “rely largely” on its staff obtaining SIR certification “as adequate training to prevent the sale of liquor to minors.” It also depends on staff approving the drinks sales policy.
“No further training, testing, hands-on practice, direct supervision, or shadowing follows,” Flood’s decision said, adding that she found Loblaws’ “training of its cashiers to sell liquor to be inadequate.”
“Selling liquor is not the same as selling milk or bread,” he wrote. “Rather, the sale of liquor involves significant responsibilities including ensuring that minors and intoxicated persons are not sold drinks and that liquor is not purchased by third parties for these otherwise ineligible purchasers .”
Instead, Flood’s recommended Loblaws includes additional training measures for staff, such as quizzes, written tests and hands-on instruction.
Flood wrote that Loblaws had “good intentions” with its training, but said it failed to prove its due diligence in this case, and ordered a penalty of $7,000.
