Employee Off Site Parking Rights

KeepFighting_2

Why not talk to your employer and find out why they have done this. Then see if you can come up with a solution. There has to be a balance and perhaps your employer might agree to say people car sharing can use the company car park or some other alternative solution. It certainly is better to have an open honest discussion then let something niggle and wait for it to blow up.

heretolearn_2

CKhalvashi is a local councillor - that could well be the hb form scenario.

SueC_2

A.Galloway wrote: »

I don't pay statutory.

You don't pay statutory what?

Compensation?

I didn't realise there was such a thing. I thought each case was judged on its individual merits.

Are you saying that if a tribunal rules against you, you voluntarily pay out more than the claimant was awarded?

jimjames

yvonne13 wrote: »

OP you say there's a few parking spaces at work so who gets to park in them?

Also have you decided where your going to park from now on?

The people who arrive first get the spaces. The people most affected are those on shift patterns that mean they start later.

Fortunately I am one who normally arrives before the spaces are gone but am asking for colleagues affected by it.

Uncertain

telboyo wrote: »

They cannot tell people not to park there, as it is a legal activity and does not affect people'sability to do the job.

They absolutely can, certainly for new employees if it is in their contract.


Let me try explaining it another way.......

You (and others) seem to be arguing that an employer can have no say over whatever an employee does out of hours or off the premises.

Consider these examples.......

Many employment contracts have clauses restricting what if any other work an employee can undertake. By your argument that would be unenforceable. It is not. It is quite common and in most cases 100% enforceable. The argument that it is out of hours and therefore no concern of the employer doesn't get round that one.

A large high profile employer near me has a contractual requirement that all staff live within 30 miles. Nobody has successfully challenged it. It is in the contract, if you choose to work for them that is what you have to do. You could argue that all the employer should be concerned about is that you turn up on time. How you do that or how far you travel should be up to you. That is a point of view but it doesn't doesn't comply the the contract you agree when taking the job.

So, all that is in debate on this issue is whether the employer can impose such a rule on existing staff. If they have not been there long enough to have protection from unfair dismissal they obviously can as they can terminate their employment without a reason (subject to paying statutory notice) and offer a new contract on different terms.

If they have been there longer it is slightly more complex. If there are sound business reasons for changing a contract an employer can generally do it. As Daisy and other have said, ultimately the disgruntled employee's only option is to reject the new contract and claim unfair dismissal. Whether they would win is speculation and would depend on the reasons and reasonableness of the change.

zzzLazyDaisy

Uncertain wrote: »

As Daisy and other have said, ultimately the disgruntled employee's only option is to reject the new contract and claim unfair dismissal. Whether they would win is speculation and would depend on the reasons and reasonableness of the change.

Absolutely right - except that I would argue that this isn't even a change to the contract - not all management instructions amount to a change to the contract since there is an implied term that the employer is contractually entitled to make business decisions (though I am happy to agree to disagree).

And even if it is a change to the contract, before any employee were to resign in response, they would be well advised to check their existing contract for a variations clause.....

CKhalvashi

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Gosh, I didn't realise housing benefit pays so well!

heretolearn wrote: »

CKhalvashi is a local councillor - that could well be the hb form scenario.

The first post is to do with housing benefit, fitting in with the role that heretolearn mentioned.

I also run a business, which is the basis of the second post. I don't think I've ever seen a HB claim go into 6 figures, even in London, although I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Assistance with housing in the second post is a low rate loan (BR + 3%), usually payable over the first 12 months of employment, or even assistance just in finding a property; it's got nothing to with the public benefits system, and the company has around £30k to one side to assist with this. I do pay tax on the interest received, of course.

CK

Gilbert2

Tell your employer to butt out of your business.

The road has no parking restrictions and your employer cannot demand you not park there any more than they can demand you service your car every 12 months.

They have other alternatives before they think they can influence your private matters, like bussing their workers in.

If the employer were to discipline you on this matter then they are opening themselves up for trouble.

Gilbert2

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Absolutely right - except that I would argue that this isn't even a change to the contract - not all management instructions amount to a change to the contract since there is an implied term that the employer is contractually entitled to make business decisions (though I am happy to agree to disagree).

.....

And not all management instructions are lawful either.

Instructing a private motorist on what he must do on a public highway is not in their remit as an employer and, therefore, is nothing to do with being entitled to make a business decision in this instance.

They can politely ask though...but not demand.

Gilbert2

Uncertain wrote: »

They absolutely can, certainly for new employees if it is in their contract.


Let me try explaining it another way.......

You (and others) seem to be arguing that an employer can have no say over whatever an employee does out of hours or off the premises.

.

In this particular instance, no, the employer cannot demand how a public highway is utilised by an employee out of hours or off premises.

Roads are not only for driving on, they are also for parking. And this road has no restrictions for parking at all.

The employer has no business interest to justify it.

They may have neighbourly concerns, which is fine, but they cannot enforce this policy as a demand to employees.

A similar decree was issued to hospital staff at UHW, Cardiff, in very similar circumstances and was withdrawn when they realised it carried no weight, the union bringing it to their attention.

In the end they asked staff to consider their neighbours instead.