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?

This thread is really unpleasant and will probably get taken down, which is a shame, because there's some useful advice amongst the vitriol.

I don't agree that the situation is irredeemable. OP's only misstep so far (admittedly a big one) was to tell Lynda she can't force people to be nice to her. She can, and she should. She should make it clear that Lynda is entitled to use the disabled parking and toilet without judgment and that excluding her from lunch and coffee runs and informal company-wide socials will be treated as bullying and a disciplinary matter.

There's clearly something going on with Lynda, in that she's acting out of character and has a possible timekeeping issue, so a discreet arms-length needs assessment will be useful. Sue's needs should be assessed at the same time because they're clearly not being met, and it's a miracle she hasn't complained.

Doing a timekeeping check on everyone is legit, but right now would be an inflammatory time to do it: hopefully external HR will suggest putting it on ice.

Short term practical fixes: make the normal loo more accessible so Lynda has a fallback. Swap reserved spaces 1 and 3 so space 1 can be left empty/company owner can remove her car during ramp use.

I've had "how will you cope?" while heavily pregnant. But mostly just polite offers of help. Often from quite frail elderly people when I'm loading my 100kg giant electric wheelchair into the van on the hoist. I'm not sure what they think they'd be able to do

so a discreet arms-length needs assessment will be useful.

Discreet and arms length? What does that mean? Not including Lynda in the assessment of her needs?

Because Lynda definitely needs to be involved

Any timekeeping issues are likely to be related to the judgmental, discriminatory attitude in the office, and an HR advisor worth their salt would discourage any kneejerk reactions.

@appendix are you ever coming back to address the many valid comments, or are you busy looking for a new job? 🤔

I just meant carried out externally - obviously it needs input from the person with disability needs!

ETA and she needs to know that what she says won't get back to OP without her permission.

I reckon sue would be the one thats actually not doing the hours, when they decide to keep time sheets. She arrives later due to childcare issues and could likely be leaving ok on time at the end but she’s arrived late while Lynda is there already.

It’s only hear say she sneaks in and out, and also why not brought to attention before.

Not really a solution for the wheelchair user unless someone else is on hand to help her use it.

Why should she feel obliged to come back & answer all the questions from the mumsnet "incapable of reading the OPs answers" mob when at 17:49 yesterday she said that the matter was being handed over to external HR experts as she didn't have the expertise to deal with this?

The baying mumsnet mob isn't a court of law.

She'd be wise to address the comments about people recognising someone on this thread, as it might save her a world of pain.

... the "baying mob" of ableist ignoramuses you mean?

She's best off not answering anything.

Again, you seem to be acting as judge & jury.

Not at all, I just happen to know who some of these people are.

I'm glad you're getting proper advise. I had thought your parking was allocated to you but it seems it isn't,, in which case it definitely is first come first served, after all, someone with a blue badge from another tenant may start to park there. Are there not disabled toilets on another floor accessible by a lift?

Lynda?

As do I.

The car has the ramp, not the disabled space. It seems there is some bad feeling between Lynda and Sue, so that could be partly at play, but OP has said that Lynda prefers to park there because it can be accessed via a side door, so not as easy for comings and going’s to be monitored.

l would suggest a call to ACAS or EHRC for advice on compliance with the Equality Act 2010. OP needs a proper assessment of the needs of both employees and a better idea of what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of a solution. As long as Lynda is treated the same as any other employee would be in the same circumstances, there is nothing wrong with looking at her time keeping. If she’s leaving earlier than she should without approval that’s a disciplinary matter. If it comes to light that it’s disability related then ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the Equality Act can be considered of necessary.

As for leaving Lynda out of non work related things like lunch and social arrangements, that’s bullying and it should be stopped urgently before Lynda decides to make a formal complaint because it sounds as though she would have legitimate grounds. Because she has a disability it could be seen as harassment or victimisation.

Speaking from the point of view of someone disabled, as well as having been employed professionally in the field of disability support l think this is being really badly handled and OP needs to realise that the right of both employees are enshrined in laws that no-one at the company seems to have the slightest regard for.

Compliance with the Equality act in this case means a proper assessment of the needs of both employees and formal reasonable adjustment to sort out which parking space is more suited to individual need, and not personal preference. If this isn’t done it could be seen to be prioritising the needs of one disabled person over those of another with greater or differing needs.

Link to EHRC website https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/disability-discrimination

Link to ACAS, law on disability discrimination https://www.acas.org.uk/disability-discrimination

Anything that is having such a big impact on the group should ideally be discussed in terms of the usual give and take expected of people in the workforce.

Their contract probably says something about being a positive and flexible person? The company is providing appropriate parking and everyone wins if the spaces suit the needs. The 'not wanting to be seen leaving' motive, if true, is ridiculous.

I think they need to make a case or use the other space.

OP stated clearly that the non wheelchair space is closer to the entrance, so it follows that the one Lynda is using, is a longer walk. And if Lynda’s behaviour regarding the parking issue is causing disruption (as evidenced by other staff having to come out to park Sue’s vehicle for her, while Lynda just looks on) then it needs to be addressed.

If Lynda is using the parking space to sneak out early unseen, then the reason for leaving early needs to be established and reasonable adjustment made if it’s disability related - so no need for her to use that particular space as the problem is sorted. If it’s not disability related then it’s a disciplinary matter and not discriminatory. Problem sorted. If she’s not actually sneaking out early then why does she insist on parking in a space further away and more suited to Sue ?

And as for the toilet situation, it needs to be established whether Lynda could reasonably use standard facilities if the disabled toilet is occupied, or whether she actually needs the disabled facilities, for example, a washbasin next to the toilet or more space to move around - again need, rather than personal choice. Walking further to the standard facilities doesn’t appear to be a problem if she chooses to park in a space with a longer walk to the door, but there may be issues there too so it needs clarifying. Lynda simply waiting until Sue needs the loo, knowing that her wheelchair means she can’t use standard facilities and then complaining about it isn’t acceptable. Yes, as a disabled person Lynda is just as entitled to use the disabled facilities as Sue but common sense and cooperation need to prevail.

It sounds as though there is ill feeling towards Lynda because as the person with the perceived lesser disability she appears to be making life more difficult for Sue. That’s not a reason for the rest of the staff to act like judge and jury, and exclude her just because she’s disabled. That’s discrimination. But there’s also no reason a disabled person isn’t just as capable of acting like a selfish, entitled dick as a non disabled one. And if Lynda is blithely looking on while other staff have to deal with the consequences of what seem to be her unthinking actions, then she shouldn’t be surprised if they adjust their attitude towards her accordingly.

Both employees are disabled so the solution has to take both their needs into account and be compliant with disability employment law but, yes, essentially this. Both employees have a need for the disabled facilities but the degree of individual need should be taken into account and both should have a responsibility to cooperate for the good of all.

I'm starting to wonder if this one individual is really worth all the agro she brings to the table. Any way of unfortunately having to let her go?

That's a bit unfair; she has already admitted she's out of her depth and getting HR advice

This. I'd look into making her redundant.

So now people are advocating letting a bullied, disabled employee go because she's too much hassle? Way to make sure you get sued!

By all means, they can do a performance review for all staff. They can speak to Lynda and see if she needs extra accommodations for her condition. They can start monitoring ALL employees times in and out. But they also need to address the bullying swiftly.

If Lynda isn't fulfilling her contract, even with appropriate accommodations and following a performance review, where she's given goals to aim at, and a warning for her poor performance then by all means let her go. But it must be shown to be being fairly applied to all (aka, if it turns out Sue isn't doing her hours because she's coming in later than Lynda or if anyone else is just leaving whenever they want etc)

For being disabled?
With people like you there's no wonder that people with disabilities can find it so hard to find a job and have a career