Regarding disabled parking

[appendix]

I work for a small company. We have office space in a small building which houses a number of other companies. There is just about enough adequate parking for all employees in terms of number of spaces.
Here is where I think I've messed up. I'm operations manager. The company is too small to have HR (we outsource things like payroll) so often HR adjacent queries end up with me.

We have 2 disabled employees. One (Sue) has significantly mobility limitations and uses a big motorised wheelchair. The other (Lynda) has less significant mobility issues (ie doesn't need a wheelchair, can walk small distances.) Both are have blue badges.

There are 3 disabled spaces in the carpark. One can be discounted as it's always in use by an employee of another company in the building who starts work very early. Out of the remaining 2 only one is big enough to accommodate Sue's needs (electric ramp for a big wheelchair etc). The issue we have is that Lynda insists on parking in it. She gets to work earlier than Sue who has childcare limitations and always parks there. It's causing a lot of frustration and ill will, especially as the other non wheelchair sized space is actually closer to the entrance, so it seems a perverse choice.

There has been a lot of grumbling among staff about this. It was especially bad a few days ago when Sue had to call for assistance - she had to get out of her car at the entrance and a colleague had to park her vehicle for her. Lynda sits watching this. Other staff members have spoken to her and asked if she could park in the other, closer space but she refuses.

Note- Sue and Lynda have clashed a bit over the years- there's only one disabled loo on our floor and yet they seem to always need it at the same time etc. I've been reliably informed that Lynda won't park close to the entrance because then her start and leave times will be visible to everyone- the other larger space is around a bend and can be accessed via a side door so her in and outs are not visible.

Anyway, we have spoken multiple times to the people who own the offices. They give no shits. The car park is apparently compliant in terms of spaces and they're not prepared to do anything more.

Our company owner has now said that whichever employee gets in first needs to park next to her reserved space and let reception know. When Sue arrives the person in the space next to the reserved one nips out, moves their car and Sue parks across both spaces. Owner then just parks where she can find a space.

It's not ideal especially in the rain. It's caused massive ill will towards Lynda who has just come to me and said she feels she's being bullied due to her disability. (She's not being included in lunch orders or social stuff organised by staff themselves, although she is fully included in terms of her job.) Honestly the company owner doesn't feel particularly warm towards her.

I'm not a HR person. I felt that as she wasn't being excluded in terms of work etc there's not a lot I can do about people liking her and I pretty much told her that. I was talking to a friend about it though and they said we could actually be in trouble for not including her in lunches/ social things, especially as it's because of issues caused by a disability. (She's invited to all work organised events, just not informal staff drinks / lunches/ chats/ coffee rounds organised by the staff)

I'm going to suggest getting some HR advice but was I wrong?

You can get referred to an external consultancy.

My school did not have an occupational health department but bought it in when I asked for one. (I was being refused some reasonable adjustments and after the assessment I got them)

But there are two disabled bays. Lynda chooses the one with the ramp, which they suspect is because she can access work via the side door, where her arrival time isn’t noticed. Unless the OP is mistaken, without the ramp, Sue needs assistance getting in and out of her vehicle.

Memo to self: never post on MN about highly confidential HR matters. It's got gross misconduct written all over it.

I did say we couldn't only look at Lynda's hours, hence the blanket approach. I worry this will stir up more ill feeling. It's very contrary to previous ways of working.

Ah, so the initial plan for this discussed only looking at Lynda? And you stopped that? What a kind and wonderful place you work! But yay, am sure it'll be made very clear that this is all Lynda's fault in one of your lovely social catch ups!

The ramp is part of Sue's car, not part of the bay. The issue is that there is not enough space within the disabled bays for the ramp to be used. The bay Lynda uses does not have another bay beside it. Hence why everyone wants her to gtfo of it so Sue can use it.

OP won't be back, she's got poster's remorse 😄.

No, read the op again.

Lynda parks in the larger of the two bays, for reasons no one knows (gossip says it’s because she wants to sneak into the building, but gossip is just that).

The ramp in question is the one attached to Sue’s van- if she can’t park in the bigger space she can lower her ramp outside the building to exit from her vehicle- someone else then has to park her van- which is obviously annoying and inconvenient for her and whoever has to do the parking.

We don’t know what the effect would be on Lynda if she parked in the smaller space because a proper needs assessment hasn’t been carried out.

Oh I also thought this straight away but wanting it to continue to be able to correct some of the gross ableism here

My daughter has a large, electric wheelchair and although she needs it there can be problems as most access is around an average, manual wheelchair.
The company perhaps needs to look at how they are meeting the needs of L and S.
Clearly as far as parking goes Ls needs are being met but by making selfish choices she is taking away the choice of S who is wheelchair bound. If the company is only meeting the needs of 1 employee but not the other then S is being denied the opportunity to park where her needs are being met adding to unnecessary stress before she's even started her working day. Surely Ls health problems are noted and an evaluation can be made accordingly. She does sound like a real bitch and I'm not surprised she has no friends. If L has a motorbility car as well as a blue badge then it's obvious ( on paper) that her mobility needs are higher than an employee with just a blue badge surely??? Does the blue badge definitely belong to L or is it 'borrowed' from a family member?.

Nope.

Anyone with enhanced pip or higher mobility DLA is entitled to participate in the motorbility scheme.

You do not need a blue badge to have a motorbility car. They are separate schemes you can choose to apply for, both with the same entitlement criteria

However there are increased understanding that motorbility vehicles are not always the most sound choice, either financially or practically.

Having a motorbility car and a blue badge does not make you more disabled than someone with just a blue badge.

This isnt disability top trumps.

Does the blue badge definitely belong to L or is it 'borrowed' from a family member?.

I can't even begin to deal with all the issues in this sentence. Just because she doesn't look the right kind of disabled she must be committing blue badge fraud? Nice

Bloody hell now we've got Lynda being accused of fraud!

Agree, is quite witch hunty some of the posts here! @salsmum how did you reach your She does sound like a real bitch and I'm not surprised she has no friends?

This I am afraid. So this new policy is being introduced solely in an attempt to 'trap' Lynda? And your boss proposes to lie about the reasons for it, ostensibly 'just to keep an eye on people's whereabouts' which she has no real interest in doing - just wants to catch Lynda out?

I wish your boss good luck with a future tribunal claim, she will need it.

I really hope Lynda is on Mn and sees this absolute bullying bitchfest from the totally unbiased op and actions some form of HR action.

Especially when Lynda must arrive before Sue if she can "steal" the space. Which means she can't be coming in THAT late

And this boss is being praised as super inclusive 🤣

My DS is a wheelchair user. His disability is very obvious, but when out and about we see many other blue badge holders and we know not to make assumptions about others just because their disabilities seem lesser than my DS's.

'(Lynda) does sound like a real bitch and I'm not surprised she has no friends.'

The OP reported that she was well liked at one time; but her popularity seems to have declined as her disability has advanced, funnily enough.

'Does the blue badge definitely belong to L or is it 'borrowed' from a family member?.'

I have to say I am pretty shocked by this statement. You accuse someone of fraud with zero evidence?

The new policy is to make sure everyone is working the hours they say they are. If no one is fiddling their hours then there are no problems. As for lying by claiming it is so they know who is in, what are they meant to say "We want to make sure no one is cheating"?

If it turns out that Linda (or anyone else for that matter) is indeed cheating, they'd be stupid to try going to a tribunal. "I was cheating on my timesheets and the boss found out" 🤔 It might even prove she isn't cheating and shut everyone up.

This is why in-house HR is a good investment. OP and her boss are hopelessly, ridiculously, terminally out of their depth, and are about to come a major cropper. I do hope someone shows this to Lynda 🍿.

.... in fact, I'd wager this post will show up in an HR case study somewhere as an example of What Not to Do and How Not to Do It.

But they are such a lovely, inclusive team!
As long as you toe the line and they like you....

The op stated that 'We're a pretty flexible organisation in terms of managing your time- people come and go as needed- it's fine to leave early for an appointment and we're trusted to get the work done and roughly make up the hours.'

That is the working environment that people are used to. Custom & practice may also come into play here. But now the boss proposes to upend that working practice, and not apparently because there are wider concerns about the productivity of all employees; purely because they want to catch out Lynda. The OP said as much in her posts, and (as far as I recall) didn't refer to any concerns about Lynda's productivity.

As I say: I wish them good luck in the tribunal if this all backfires horribly.

Sadly the knee jerk decision to make everyone sign in and out is a typical response of poor managers.

If management are aware Lynda is not working her contractual hours there are options to gather evidence that does not involve imposing a punitive policy on all employees.

And who wants to bet that when Lynda is finally bullied out of her job the signing in practice gets quickly scrapped?

No doubt OP will generously share with the world and her dog us every future development in this fascinating case. Thus providing ever more evidence for the tribunal, and an ever-bigger rod for her own back.

Linda had friends until she became disabled enough to be the object of judgement and derision but not disabled enough to be the object of pity.

How would you feel if your daughter lost her friends because they decided they didn't believe her disability was bad enough for an electric wheelchair and excluded her from their social gatherings.

How would you feel if people questioned whether your daughter really needed an electric wheelchair or if she had borrowed it off a family member.

Perhaps Linda's needs are only met using the space she is using, but no one has bothered to do an assessment to find out.

Perhaps Linda finds it extremely hard to get out of the car and knows everyone is watching and judging her so prefers to do it away from the judgemental colleagues assessing her every move to see if she is "disabled enough" because she could do things before she was disabled/her disability progressed so they don't believe she can't do them now.