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?

I don’t think Lynda is being excluded specifically because of the parking issues - although other staff have had to step in and help Sue because of Lynda’s actions. I think the exclusion may be from the first hand witnessing by other staff of actions they perceive as deliberately making life more difficult for Sue, and possibly influenced by the fact that Sue is wheelchair bound and Lynda is not.

While that may seem unfair, the fact that Sue has an adapted vehicle specifically for her wheelchair, and that it’s a motorised wheelchair, does suggest a higher level of disability and therefore a higher level of need in some respects, than Lynda. If Lynda is perceived as not being mindful of Sue’s needs and accommodating them where possible, then unsurprisingly, that’s where the bad feeling has arisen.

Management can’t fix the bad feeling but they have a duty to ensure that that bad feeling doesn’t affect the working environment - including social activities outside the workplace if she is being deliberately excluded. And it sounds very much as though this is what’s happening - the fact that it’s likely as a result of Lynda’s own actions is irrelevant. As a disabled person, Lynda has protected characteristics and the actions of the other staff could well be defined as bullying, harassment or victimisation within the Equality Act, so it needs to be stopped and Lynda needs to be included as part of the team to avoid a grievance for which she may well have grounds.

Dear Colleagues

It has come to our attention that members of staff are feeling excluded from in office coffee runs and lunches. We understand and accept you will form friendships at work and may wish to socialise outside of working hours but please ensure anything organised within working hours doesn't exclude only one or two members of staff

Sincerely
Your Super Inclusive and Amazing Boss

The bullying allegation is serious and was dismissed too readily. Management absolutely can step in if employee behaviour is affecting a member of staff and making them feel excluded. Especially when those "Social" events are withint working hours

Yep, this. Just because you’re disabled doesn’t mean you can’t be a dick. And I say that as a disabled person myself. It sounds to me as though there’s a bit of dickery on both sides and it really should be nipped in the bud so that actual need can be determined rather than personal preference.

Yes but she waits until she knows someone else needs to, and makes that person wait. You say if she doesn't go then she might have to wait and might not make, but she's doing that to Sue, but somehow you think Sue is the unreasonable one?
It doesn't belong to Sue you are right. But Sue isn't waiting till Lynda needs it and making her wait. Sue hasn't said she wants it to herself, she just doesn't want someone deliberately waiting till she needs. What's your solution? They both wait till the other needs then race to get there first ? How about Lynda just goes when she needs like Sue has to ?

Informing them that she has a BB isn’t the same as notifying her condition. Employers are actually not allowed to enquire as to the nature of someone’s disability. The decision to disclose is entirely that of the employee, and during my time as a disabilty support worker I’ve come across many disabled people who don’t want to disclose because they fear they will be treated differently. They will give minimum information, such as needing a BB space, or to park nearer the entrance, but won’t disclose why. I’ve also come across many who are in difficult situations and won’t disclose even though it would be to their advantage. It leaves the employer hamstrung because they’re not in possession of all the facts so can only provide limited solutions based on what they know.

Presumably that's the only thing the company super inclusive and amazing boss can do.
Once that email has been seen by everyone and still Lynda is being excluded, theres nothing else to be done.
You cannot make people socialise with those they do not like. That in itself would be bullying. You also cannot do anything about outside of work hours socialising. Out of work hours is not your remit.

And inside work hours if they have a brain, they will just do solo coffee runs, and never eat together or have cake mornings or whatever ( can you tell I dont work in an office) still leaving Lynda excluded.

Not true. If Lynda is being specifically excluded from social events involving other members of the workplace, that’s a problem too. Lynda has protected characteristics as a disabled person and exclusion to this degree could be seen as preventing Lynda from taking part in socialisation that is team building and benefiting those taking part. That’s discrimination and puts the employer on very dodgy ground if they don’t intervene.

Sue doesn't care if Lynda needs it either. Neither of these women care about each other. They're equally doing what suits themselves. But only Lynda is getting bullied for it because she's not as pitiful as Sue in everyone else's eyes.

How can Lynda "just go when she needs" if the toilet is occupied? I've already said what my solution would be. Knowing that it is a shared loo, if Sue doesn't want to have to wait, she can give Lynda a heads-up beforehand so Lynda can get hers out of the way. This way both women get to use it without waiting.

Warnings can be given to the organisers if they continue to leave Lynda out. Or boss could simply stop employees being allowed out to do coffee runs and take over organising lunches etc

They absolutely can step in if out of work problems are spilling into working hours

Why are you ignoring the fact that Lynda is the only one that waits till the other needs to go. Sue can't be "doing what suits herself" as when she wants to go the the toilet Lynda makes her wait. There will be rare occasions when both need at the same time , and one will have to wait , that happens with normal toilets aswell. The difference is Lynda is waiting till Sue needs to go . It's not equal. Why is it only Sue that has to announce her toilet schedule? The OP stated that Lynda takes quite a while aswell. What is the point in Sue warning Lynda ? She will have to wait anyway? Why does lyndas need take preference over Sues?

I don't think Lynda is specifically sitting there going "ooo I need the loo but I'll hang on until Sue needs it"...

Because these are two grown women acting like dicks. There is an accessible toilet available as required. There is no requirement that it must be immediately available when needed. It is not the responsibility of the employer or the owner to sort out who goes where and when. They are not children who need mummy to tell them when to go to the toilet. Until they work together on a solution, it will continue to be whoever gets there second will have to wait. Neither Lynda nor Sue take priority.

You're also assuming Lynda only uses the toilet those times Sue needs it. We don't know that those are the only times she uses it.

Neither do I! Remember Lyndas highly observed loo habits are being reported by Ops 'reliable informants'...

if Sue doesn't want to have to wait, she can give Lynda a heads-up beforehand so Lynda can get hers out of the way.

Isn't that exactly what's happening now? Sue always has to wait for Lynda, so she sets off with fifteen minutes to spare.

For an abrasive Daily Mail reader, Sue seems rather forbearing.

People aren’t not inviting her because of her disability, she’s not being invited because she’s a selfish twat who doesn’t give a shit about another disabled person and is making their life more difficult daily. She’s using her disability as an excuse which is also shitty behaviour! And if she comes in earlier then why does she want to park around the corner so no one can see her times?

Sue isn't "acting like a child" though is she? She just wants to go to the toilet but "almost every time" Lynda makes her wait because she doesn't want to possibly wait herself. Never said it's anything to do with the employer . I take issue with you post earlier insinuating Sue is being unreasonable in not announcing her impending trip to the toilet to her colleague so said colleague has the option of making her wait. What can Sue do for a solution? If she does what you suggest then she is still at the mercy of Lynda prioritising herself . With her disabilities, even she goes to go to the toilet first Lynda is always going to be able to beat her, which is exactly what is happening. Do you know how mad it would be to explain to someone else,
"I have to go tell my colleague if I need the toilet just in case she wants to first, otherwise she'll wait till she sees me going and she'll get there before me"

Maybe they should consider moving Lynda's desk so she can't see when Sue is going to the toilet.

I didn't say Sue was unreasonable. I told you giving Lynda the heads-up is one solution and what I would do in that situation. I also didn't say Sue is "acting like a child". I said they are both grown women and it is their responsibility to sort this out between them. Which neither are showing any interest in doing.

Someone getting to the toilet before you is just life. Just like when someone else takes the last vegan sandwich before you do (IYKYK). It's annoying, but it is not wrong.

Maybe it's a good excuse to not have to do work for a bit.

You honestly don't think this insinuates that Sue is being unreasonable?

Yes someone getting to the toilet before you is life , it happens. Someone waiting till they see need to go then taking advantage of your disability so they can go before you is someone is not "just life". And I'm yet to see what Sue can do to take responsibility and avoid it?

Of course people make friends and maybe two colleagues will go for an impromptu drink after work, and of course they don’t have to invite everyone. But that’s not what’s being suggested here. It seems that Lynda’s colleagues are organising social events outside of work and she’s the only one left out. Lynda has protected characteristics as a disabled person and the fact that everyone except her is included would be seen as discrimination, and probably victimisation. In the event that Lynda raises a grievance she would have a good case if the employer was aware of it and hadn’t at least taken steps to try to stop it.

I don’t think we can actually know that that’s true.

Everyone knows how group think works in offices- everyone gets behind their cause and passes the time by bitching, moaning and interpreting every little thing as part of the us and them narrative.

The office has decided that Lynda is a piss taking bully so they are going to see everything through that lens- it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the op that Sue could be watching for Lynda looking at the loo, standing up to go etc and then announcing SHE has to go right then and making a big scene of huffing and puffing when Lynda doesn’t capitulate.

I doubt anyone is actually watching these two disabled women so closely every minute that they know exactly which one has decided they need the loo first every time- unless no actual work takes place all day!

Without an actual needs assessment no one can decide either way who (if anyone) is being a dick.

Situations like this are why HR departments/companies exist- because once everyone has picked a side, waded in on the gossip and generally stirred the pot as much as possible no one in the team has an unbiased view of the facts.

Right- but she has informed them of the BB which is all she needs to do to use a disabled parking bay. She doesn’t have to give any more information about it because having a BB is the only prerequisite for parking there.

I could turn up and park there every morning at 6am and no one would have grounds to complain.

This may be a mute point by Monday morning if someone else with a BB and more pity power than Sue gets a job there and parks in that bay- then Sue will suddenly discover that someone else is ‘more disabled” or “worse off” than her, and suddenly she is the villain for not making life easier for poor disabled New Person.

This is exactly what employers want- everyone looking round for the nearest disabled person to blame for their shit facilities and attitude, instead of placing the blame where it belongs- SHIT FUCKING ACCESSIBILITY AND RAMPANT ABLISM.