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?

Sue being the right sort of (visibly pitiful) disabled also isn’t a free pass to have her needs met over and above her disabled colleagues- the parking and toilet situation has to be made to work for both their needs.

Both women can't use the space and the toilet at the exact same time, so what do you suggest?

In an ideal world they would both get their own personalised to their needs spaces and toilets but thats just ridiculous and unfeasible.

The most reasonable suggestion is that as Lynda can walk and park in normal spaces, she parks in the space that allows Sue to get out of her car, and stops racing to the toilet to stop Sue using it, or she uses the other toilet.

I don't see why telling Lynda to be reasonable is such an issue for the whattaboutery crowd.

Or maybe Lynda would like to take a severance package and get a job elsewhere with no other disabled people where she can be the only disabled one there and trump everyone.

Lots of bizarre hatred there @JosiePosey ?

It’s also illegal for an employer to even ask an employee about disability. It’s up to them whether they want to disclose the details

It's unlawful. Illegal means it's a criminal offence, which it isn't.

But if you don't disclose your disability, you can't have accommodations. As I said above, employers cannot be expected to be telepathic. And if they need to accommodate two people with disabilities, they need to understand what those two people need so they can accommodate them both.

Utter ignorance.

Sue has greater need

Says who? No one has done an assessment to find out what Lynda’s needs are.

Presuming a wheelchair = greater need shows ignorance of how disability works.

that can actually walk

Walk how far? At what cost and risk to herself? Under what circumstances?

if I was the company owner, I would be looking to get rid of Lynda (because she is a dick) on the basis of her not working her hours.

Attempting to sack a disabled employee based on office gossip and a lack of understanding of disability, both practically and legally, would not end well for you (unless you enjoy dealing with grievances, tribunals and compensation).

No hatred, I'm just sick of the endless whattaboutery on here and the opinion that because Lynda is disabled she can do what she wants, when she wants, inconveniencing someone worse off than her with no explanation.

Thats not the way the world works, people have to give and take so she should be told to stop her bollocks and just being disabled doesn't mean she shouldn't be told.

Unless I’ve misunderstood something, Lynda is not being denied the bigger space. The company owner has come up with a convoluted plan so that Lynda can carry on using the bigger space.

The poor treatment by others because they don’t like her using it? It sounds harsh but people are entitled not to like her.

The person with the biggest ground for complaint is Sue. If she decided to be even a fraction of the dick Lynda is being then things could get tricky.

Says the op. Your whatabouttery is just stupid now.

Once AGAIN just because Sue is in a wheelchair doesn't mean she is worse off and that is just disgusting ableism

Lynda and Sue are both entitled to use the disabled bay. We have no idea on Lynda's needs due to the lack of assessment carried out. You are seeing a wheelchair and going "wheelchair = more disabled"

Both women can't use the space and the toilet at the exact same time, so what do you suggest?

That those with the responsibility to provide adequate accessible facilities actually do, instead of palming the responsibility off onto disabled employees to sacrifice their needs to save the company money.

The most reasonable suggestion is that as Lynda can walk and park in normal spaces, she parks in the space that allows Sue to get out of her car,

This can not be presumed. That isn’t how the law or disability work I’m afraid, no matter how inconvenient that may be to ignorant able bodied employers.

There are duties the company is bound to fulfil in terms of assessing and meeting all disabled employees needs- and that doesn’t include seeing a wheelchair and presuming that that shows greater need.

Even if it was confirmed that Sue had to have a space of that size, it’s entirely possible that a needs assessment would find Lynda also did, and then the company would have to find a way to provide another-

perhaps by making an able bodied colleague give up parking in the car park all together in order to free up space? After all, they can walk, so why can’t they park on the nearest on street parking?

You can't say Sue has the greater mobility need. She has a wheelchair, so she's actually more mobile than Lynda who still has to struggle to walk from area to area. What Sue has is a different need. An access one. It is this need that the car park fails to meet because most disabled bays are not designed for her type of vehicle setup. Lynda is not to blame for this design issue.

People can not like other people but Lynda has been deliberately excluded from in office activities like lunches and coffee runs. That is bullying

We cannot call Lynda a dick because we don't know her full needs as to whether is just trying to "out disable" Sue or whether she does require the space she parks in (which she is entitled to park in anyway) and whether she has toilet anxiety which is why she feels the need to rush in ahead. Even if she is being a bit of a dick, she's not acting the same as those deliberately excluding her from office social events.

The op hasn’t done a needs assessment so has no idea if anyone’s needs.

The op isn’t an HR specialist and has admitted that she is totally out of her depth, doesn’t understand the legal framework or implications and has had to go and get outside help.

The op is not a reliable source on this situation.

It's all entirely irrelevant anyway because the actual issue is that the disabled parking spots don't meet Sue's needs. If the other company employed another disabled person with a blue badge this company would be right back to square one (and in fact worse off as Sue appears to arrive last). Linda is just a red herring in all of this that's being scapegoated because its easier to blame the "lazy disabled"

And here is the crux of the matter - this is a building with multiple occupancy. If one of the other users (or indeed this company itself) hired another disabled person and Sue continues to arrive late (despite Lynda being the one who apparently wants to creep in late!) then she would last on the Disabled Space order anyway, even if they did force Lynda to stop using a space she might well have needs for too

who are you to decide that wheelchair users are worse off than anyone else?!

And to find out the need the company has to instigate a process of assessment- not just decide that if the employee doesn’t tell every nosey fucker in the office what her toileting arrangements are that said employee isn’t disabled.

But how would you feel if every time you started making your way to the loo someone would jump in in front of you and you had to wait?

Wouldn’t this be even more anxiety triggering (for them) plus the added risk of them soiling themselves as actually they were on their way so they had already felt the physical ‘need to go’?

Fine to do with your husband but would be extremely selfish doing it to a disabled colleague just because you knew you could reach the loo faster (as OP is describing)

If Lynda parks in the bigger space, Sue can'tget out of her car. I'd call that worse off, wouldn't you?

If I knew a colleague uses that one loo too, and that when I go I take a long time, I would let my colleague know I would be going soon so she could go first if she needs to. As Sue, I would not think, "Fuck Lynda. She can piss herself. Not my problem." And as Lynda, I would appreciate the heads-up.

Yet somehow Sue has still been able to get out of her car except for that one time when she got a colleague to park it.

Obviously if it were true Lynda was doing this every time, in order to upset Sue and for no other reason, that would be a dick move.

If Lynda is doing it every time because there is some sort of clash between the two women’s needs (like Lynda never knows when she will have to go NOW so knows she can’t wait for Sue)- then adjustments need to be made to the facilities so that both women have their needs met.

However, the op seems to be totally caught up in the deserving and undeserving disabled narrative in the office- I don’t think her representation of the situation can be relied on.

Frankly the fact that disabled people are still having to argue the toss and are expected to discuss the details of when, why, how, with what help and for how long they take a piss- or face judgement, gossip and harassment- is fucking disgusting.

Say they fire Lynda some how.. a new staff member starts and they also have a blue badge. It’s an anyone with a bb space. If sue needs that space and only that space then she has to get their first basically.

General bb spaces are first come first serve. Be that work or Tesco.

And if Sue parks in the bigger space and Lynda can’t get out of her car? That’s ok I suppose because she isn’t ’wheelchair bound’?

No one (least of all random ill informed people on the internet) are in a position to know what would happen to Lynda if she didn’t have that space- that’s why there are laws around doing proper needs assessments in the workplace. So that nobody can see a wheelchair and let pity take over critical thinking.

The Sues off this world don’t need your pity.

When I was due to return to work, my workplace used a private Occupational Health Company to make a private assessment. I expect you have one to check people's desks are the right height and that your pregnant peeps are safe. Get them to do an OH assessment on both as to their work needs. I'm supposed to use a disabled toilet in case I collapse which annoys many disabled toilet users as I look quite fit and healthy. I don't currently have a Blue Badge.

OH may decide that Lynda needs A parking space available but not one of the wider ones for example. And decide that she needs access to A toilet nearby (for IBS etc) but not the disabled one. If she is using the Disabled one when she is able to use a regular toilet "just in case" this IS petty bullying. She can explain to OH why she must use a disabled one if she doesn't want to discuss it with you. OH can also access medical records to find out why she has a Blue Badge at all. It also means that OH can ensure you're meeting Sue's needs.

It strikes me that Lynda believes she is invincible and is trying to get you for constructive dismissal. You need to check her time keeping and give her a formal warning about it. Take threats of "bullying in the workplace" seriously and document it thoroughly, in front of her. However - take any complaints about Lynda just as seriously and document those as well. Poor quality of work, missed deadlines, her obvious cruelty to Sue... All need to be documented.

Lynda hasn't informed the company of a change of condition, so until she does all they can do is assume she doesn't have extra needs and, is just being a dick.