Employee Off Site Parking Rights

zzzLazyDaisy

Andy_L wrote: »

Ultimately yes they can. It would be a change to you contract that says "you can't park on X, Y & Z roads during working hours" You could either accept that change or refuse, resign & claim constructive dismissal. in which case the tribunal would decide if it was a reasonable thing to do. My gut-feeling would be that not pi55ing off the locals & possibly losing their premises would be reasonable grounds.

Just a comment on constructive dismissal.

The burden of proof is on the employee to show that the employer committed such a fundamental breach of contract, that it effectively brought the contract to an end.

Issuing a management instruction is within the terms of the contract, and so cannot amount to a fundamental breach of contract in and of itself.

The issue of whether it is a reasonable management instruction or not, relates to whether a subsequent dismissal for failing to comply with the management instruction would viewed as fair or unfair.

But a management instruction that amounted to such a fundamental breach of contract as to justify the employee resigning and succeeding in a claim for CD would have to be something like giving someone a management instruction to falsify evidence in a court case (for example).

timbo58

A.Galloway wrote: »

Not at all. We/they don't have a duty of care for employees outside the workplace.

Women or not, they are equal under law. Men are vulnerable too, not just women.

A.G

Indeed.
We had some smart !!!!! trying to discriminate at my old work where we worked late and early shifts once.
They tried to argue that all women should not do shifts on late nights especially at weekends or every early mornings for safety reasons and dark car parks etc.
i.e. let the men do the crappy shifts no one wanted.

It didn't work, they were offered better lighting in the car park and being walked to their car late at night 'when' a male manager was available (reading between the lines it meant quite an unpaid delay whilst waiting for said man to become available!)

The Union actually told the person they were actually doing their sex a disservice as it would make women less 'attractive' to be recruited if successful.

Johno100

dizzyrascal wrote: »

The university where I work has no available on-street parking within 2 miles in any direction and has only limited parking on site on a first-come first-served basis, same goes for the large hospital next door, so how does that work with your vulnerable workers approach?
You could be mugged/attacked anywhere, doesn't have to be on the way back to your car.

But your employer is not interferring with where you park, just not providing any parking. They are just waving you out the door and saying off you go you are on your own.

The employer in question is involving himself as to where his employees can legally park. I am querying if this extends his duty of care.

SueC_2

A.Galloway wrote: »

We/they don't have a duty of care for employees outside the workplace.

Although there is a requirement to provide 'means of access and egress that is safe and without risk'. Sending employees to park down a dark alley on the wrong side of town could possibly be construed as a breach of that.

A.Galloway

Uncertain wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake!

There doesn't need to be anything "in the statute books".

Why comment on something you clearly know nothing about? Read what has been said and learn from it.

There is no question that it is 100% lawful for an employer to have such rules for new employees and enforce them with disciplinary action.

The only possible question here is whether it would be (legally) reasonable to impose such a change on existing employees. I certainly wouldn't stake my job on it not being so.

Legal or lawful?

Absolutely not. Only a mad man would impose such a ridiculous policy on their employees. Why any sane person would want to control one's life out-with work is beyond me!

As an employer, I have no say on how employees get to work or where they park their car on a public highway. I could also never put such a condition in ones employment contract - existing or new employees.

My employees could travel to work by hot air balloon and park it outside for all I care!

A.G

Uncertain

A.Galloway wrote: »

Only a mad man would impose such a ridiculous policy on their employees. Why any sane person would want to control one's life out-with work is beyond me!

That is your opinion and your are entitled to it. The fact remains that many employers do have such policies and it is perfectly lawful for them to do so.

As an employer, I have no say on how employees get to work or where they park their car on a public highway.

You may choose to have no say, that is up to you.

I could also never put such a condition in ones employment contract - existing or new employees.

You could if you chose and it would certainly be lawful for new employees. Whether it would be reasonable to impose such a change on existing employees is open to some question but in many circumstances it may well be.

What you are forgetting is that is is perfectly lawful for an employer to discriminate in any way they please except for the handful of reasons that are prohibited by law.

The fact that you don't like or agree with something doesn't, in itself, make it unlawful.

A.Galloway

Uncertain wrote: »

That is your opinion and your are entitled to it. The fact remains that many employers do have such policies and it is perfectly lawful for them to do so.



You may choose to have no say, that is up to you.



You could if you chose and it would certainly be lawful for new employees. Whether it would be reasonable to impose such a change on existing employees is open to some question but in many circumstances it may well be.

What you are forgetting is that is is perfectly lawful for an employer to discriminate in any way they please except for the handful of reasons that are prohibited by law.

The fact that you don't like or agree with something doesn't, in itself, make it unlawful.

Illegal or unlawful?

Okay, lets try an experiment. I will notify my employees tomorrow morning that they cannot park within 50 miles of me in their own time, out-with work and I don't care what they have to say. I will also inform them that should they go against their new employment contract, I shall dismiss them!

It's safe to say I would be paying out a few million to my employees in unfair dismissal.

This is almost laughable.

A.G

zzzLazyDaisy

A.Galloway wrote: »

Illegal or unlawful?

Okay, lets try an experiment. I will notify my employees tomorrow morning that they cannot park within 50 miles of me in their own time, out-with work and I don't care what they have to say. I will also inform them that should they go against their new employment contract, I shall dismiss them!

It's safe to say I would be paying out a few million to my employees in unfair dismissal.

This is almost laughable.

A.G

Yes you are right, that would be an unfair dismissal, and rightly so. What they do in their own time is their own business (with a few exceptions).

On the other hand, where a business has employees who make a habit of parking in local roads close to the business premises, and the local residents are complaining about this, the employer might decide to issue an instruction to its employees not to park on the roads where they are getting complaints about. That does not amount to a change of contract or a breach of contract.

Most employees will comply with the instruction. Some may decide that it is a breach of their human rights or whatever, and continue parking there. It would be up to the employer to decide whether to discipline them or not - on the basis that there is no grounds for external appeal to tribunal for lower warnings, only for dismissal, some would, some would not.

Frankly, if you have an employee who is willing to go all the way through the disciplinary procedure to the extent of getting himself dismissed, just to prove a point, there are probably other authority related problems with that employee, and the employer probably won't have much difficulty finding some other reason for the dismissal.

It doesn't necessarily make it right, but employment law is limited in the right of redress for the employee, and ultimately that's what counts.

Uncertain

A.Galloway wrote: »

Illegal or unlawful?

Okay, lets try an experiment. I will notify my employees tomorrow morning that they cannot park within 50 miles of me in their own time, out-with work and I don't care what they have to say. I will also inform them that should they go against their new employment contract, I shall dismiss them!

It's safe to say I would be paying out a few million to my employees in unfair dismissal.

This is almost laughable.

A.G

Yes, imposing your extreme 50 mile example would certainly result in successful unfair dismissal claims.

However a rule that prohibited parking within say a quarter of a mile would be perfectly enforceable, certainly for new staff.

Where would the line be drawn? I don't know, like all things it depends on what is "reasonable".

As Lazy Daisy has pointed out the bottom line is that an employee would have to challenge this at a tribunal to find out. Either way they would have no job, they might or might not get some compensation.

And it is "unlawful" not "illegal", that relates to the criminal law!

jimjames

dizzyrascal wrote: »

Secondly, I think you will find that the residents themselves will happily forward photos of cars that are regularly parked on their street if their ability to park is becoming an issue.

I'm sure they would. The difficulty is linking a car to an individual if that person has not disclosed any vehicles to the employer. My understanding is that an employer does not have the right to contact DVLC to ask for registered keeper details, which incidentally may not be the person driving the car to work.

The whole thing opens a can of worms when there is no direct connection between the employment/employee and a vehicle