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?

She's quoting what the OP has said. It's not arguing black is white, it's arguing white is white.

You are using the name of a disabled woman as an insult. I'm not sure what that makes you at heart but I can certainly think of a few words.

There is one disabled toilet, two employees who need to use it. Two disabled spaces and both employees want to use the same one. The employer doesn’t own the building or the car park so isn’t in a position to spend money solving the problem, so what it comes down to in the end is the two employees in question cooperating to solve the problem so that neither is at a disadvantage. How is that passing the buck ?

The onus is on the employer to make the reasonable adjustment - how do you think they’re going to do that without the cooperation of the other employees ? As a disability support worker I can quote dozens of instances over the years where a reasonable adjustment wouldn’t have been possible without the input of other employees.

One simple example was the employment of someone with a severe mobility problem in a general office. The job description included responsibility for stationery ordering and handling, and filling of sanitary/tampon dispensers and toilet roll holders in the loos. Clearly this person wasn’t capable of that physical aspect of the job, so before committing to employ them, the employer consulted with the other potential colleagues to see what could be done.

Other staff members agreed to take on these duties in return for aspects of their own jobs which were desk based being included in the new employee’s job description. Problem solved and a disabled person gets a job which would otherwise not have been suitable. It’s ridiculous to suggest that reasonable adjustment is the sole responsibility of the employer - solutions often need the input of those who are/will be working alongside the disabled person, and who, in my experience, are only too willing to help. Why should another disabled person be any less willing to participate in a solution to the benefit of them both ?

Reasonable adjustment is not always possible. If the employer has explored all available options and a solution cannot be offered, that’s where their responsibility ends. As has been said before, the key word is ‘reasonable’.

Thanks, yes, if it's ordered in for everyone bar her, definitely bullying. I'm just not totally convinced that if others go out in their free time that it is. Of course, if it's clear that's what's happening via work systems or chat in the office then it could be, but surely they'd be more circumspect and not dicuss in the office, just use personal comms and arrange to meet outside.

If every single person bar you worked with organised to go to lunch together at lunch time, which is really obvious is everyone leaves the building at the same time, would you not feel excluded and bullied?

Small groups going together then no that's fine they can go with whoever they want

I think the difficulty here would arise if the employee discovered that they had been specifically excluded from an after work event. The question of keeping it quiet - not discussing the event the next day in the office for example. Then what you have is a conspiracy to exclude. It’s still bullying. And if after hours socialisation could be seen to be team building or fostering better relations, then this puts the excluded employee at a disadvantage. It’s a minefield.

That’s relying on the good will of the other employees in those cases.

in this case your asking one disabled person to stop what helps them and to make their lives at work harder for another disabled person. That’s not the same.

Excluded possibly, but bullied, I'm not sure. That word seems to do some heavy lifting these days.

And I might wonder why and do a bit of self reflection.

In schools exclusion by peers counts as bullying. Even if those peers don’t want to play because the other kid is a shit bag.

It’s not just relying on the goodwill of other employees. The rights of disabled people are enshrined in law under the Equality Act and everyone has to act within the law. For example, if an employee had a severe allergy, other employees would have a duty to act within the law and not bring anything onsite which would exacerbate that allergy. In the OP’s situation, if both disabled people don’t cooperate to find a solution mutually beneficial to them both, then nobody wins, because the employer doesn’t own the premises, so isn’t in a position to allocate a designated space, or provide alternative accessible toileting that accommodates them both at the same time.

No one is asking anyone to do anything that makes life harder for them as disabled individual. A needs assessment would clarify the needs of both employees as a starting point and the employer would work with them both to try to find a solution. If none can be found, the employer has no further obligation to reasonable adjustment. As I’ve said before, the key word is ‘reasonable’.

When in your case the company asked others to take over responsibilities that where someone else’s job and did so in excuse for losing some of theirs, that was good will. That was people being happy to have a change of job description. They could have legally said no as it was t the job they signed upto.

thats goodwill.

One simple example was the employment of someone with a severe mobility problem in a general office. The job description included responsibility for stationery ordering and handling, and filling of sanitary/tampon dispensers and toilet roll holders in the loos. Clearly this person wasn’t capable of that physical aspect of the job, so before committing to employ them, the employer consulted with the other potential colleagues to see what could be done.

Other staff members agreed to take on these duties in return for aspects of their own jobs which were desk based being included in the new employee’s job description. Problem solved and a disabled person gets a job which would otherwise not have been suitable.

Again, the reasonable adjustment here is not the agreement between employees. It is the change in the job description for the applicant. Like someone else pointed out previously, this is just another example of employers passing the buck on to other employees.

Also, unless the other staff members have these new duties written into their contracts, or if there isn't something that says "...and any other tasks required", they can stop doing them at any time as these are not part of the T&C of their job.

Legally a disabled person has protected characteristics. Exclusion in these circumstances could be seen as bullying, harassment or victimisation. A bit of self reflection is probably wise, if, as it seems, Lynda’s colleagues are observing and perceiving her behaviour towards Sue as unfair or unwarranted. But that’s not an excuse for them to exclude her from work related activities, or from invitation to external social activities involving everyone else. it’s a recipe for trouble if the employer is aware of it and doesn’t act.

How on earth is an employer doing his best to secure suitable employment for a disabled applicant by asking for the input of other employees who will be working alongside that person ‘passing the buck’ ? Of course the change in job description is the reasonable adjustment, but the point is, that without the input of the other employees it wouldn’t have been achievable and the job would have gone to someone else. I’ve been involved in dozens of similar situations over the years. Reasonable adjustment is a process - it’s not always achievable but in my experience many employers are capable of thinking outside the box and going to bat for the disabled person.

I’m withdrawing from this thread now, because explaining the same points over and over again is exhausting and pointless.

to say she wants it so people can’t see her arriving and leaving work!!!

Rtft

Fair enough. In which case they need to stop the lunch outings unless in small groups, definitely the excluding for ordering in, that's really not on, but I still think they should be able to arrange things after work if they want.

Do you really think an employer would refuse to hire someone based on their other employees saying no? The employer doesn't need input from the employees to make that decision. It is just a PR ploy to make people feel like they have a say. The real purpose was to avoid bad feelings. Saying "you're now required to do X, Y and Z because of the new recruit" would annoy people, so they word it to make it sound like it is a team decision.

The employer does not have to change the basic nature of the job to provide reasonable adjustment. For example, if someone in a call centre asks for a job that does not involve taking calls, this might not be reasonable if there is no other job to give them. An employer does not have to make adjustments that are unreasonable. However, if an employer can reasonably reallocate minor or subsidiary duties to another worker as a disabled worker has difficulty doing them because of his disability, then this would be considered a reasonable adjustment and failure to consider this option would mean that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustment.

That’s quoted from the Equality Act 2010. It’s a legal requirement. It would require the cooperation of the other employees, but basically what it means is that they have to act within the law as it applies here.

Other staff members agreed to take on these duties in return for aspects of their own jobs which were desk based being included in the new employee’s job description.

Company wants to employ the best candidate because that is advantageous to them.

The best candidate for the vital part of the role is disabled and unable to do some minor elements of the job.

The company ‘solved’ their problem by passing the buck to a different employee- expecting them to alter their role so that the company can employ the person they want.

Problem solved and a disabled person gets a job which would otherwise not have been suitable…

solutions often need the input of those who are/will be working alongside the disabled person, and who, in my experience, are only too willing to help

And mustn’t we all be grateful 🙄

I think you’re taking this to ridiculously pedantic levels now. You’ve also contradicted yourself because upthread you stated that the employees would be within their rights to stop at any time because the new duties aren’t part of their Ts and Cs. So which is it ? Have a look at my post just upthread - direct quote from the Equality Act 2010. If minor or subsidiary duties that the disabled employee would find difficult because of their disability can be allocated to others then failure to consider this as an option would be a failure to provide reasonable adjustment. The employer doesn’t have to change the basic nature of the job, just swap around some of the duties the disabled person would find difficult.

What would you like the employer to do ? The disabled person still ends up with a job they wouldn’t otherwise have - surely that’s the point isn’t it ? As a disabled person coming into a new work environment I would far rather the reasonable adjustment be agreed with my colleagues beforehand than have it forced on them and create resentment.

That’s quoted from the Equality Act 2010. It’s a legal requirement. It would require the cooperation of the other employees, but basically what it means is that they have to act within the law as it applies here.

That says the employer can reallocate minor or subsidiary duties to another worker. It does not say that the other worker has to be consulted, or that their agreement is required to make that decision, or that cooperation is required.

Pretty much all businesses will have something in the contract/job description/handbook that tells you that your duties might change as the needs of the service changes. You agree to this when you sign your contract. This gives them the power to make changes to your duties if the job requires it.

Just because Lynda is disabled does not mean she cant be committing disability discrimination herself. She is knowingly and deliberately making life harder for Sue with no stated explanation for why in regard to the parking. The toilet behaviour is despicable.

IME, people who have genuine need, however embarrassed they may feel, are open to speaking to someone about what is going on for them in confidence. This kind of behaviour is CFery.

FFS why the eye roll ? What do you want them to do ? It’s not passing the buck, it’s complying with the legal requirement to provide reasonable adjustment. If the employer can reasonably swap around some of the duties unsuitable for the disabled person and allocate them to other staff, and they fail to consider this option, they are considered to have failed to provide reasonable adjustment. How would you feel if you were a disabled person starting a new job and were greeted by colleagues who were immediately resentful of you because they had been forced to comply with a directive instead of being consulted and participating in the decision. This thread is rapidly descending into the batshit.

I haven't contradicted myself at all. See my previous post. It is not pedantic to correct misinformation regarding employment law.

If there is not something in an employee's contract that says their duties might change, their job description must be changed officially if they want to force employees to do something not in their job description. It's much less trouble to make employees do this voluntarily. But it remains voluntary.

If what the OP says about Lynda’s behaviour is accurate then I agree. Being disabled doesn’t put you above the law. Most reasonable people would do their best not to behave in a way that puts a disabled person at a disadvantage. Disabled people behaving shittily to other disabled people is just depressing.

Most of the OPs thoughts seem to be based on being "reliably informed" by the office gossips and some of the "facts" contradict each other

Able bodied and disabled people being shitty about what they think a disabled person should or shouldn't be able to do is just depressing