Employee Off Site Parking Rights

Gilbert2

jimjames wrote: »

Can a company really dictate that to employees that they cannot park a vehicle on a public road that has no restrictions on parking?

No they can't.

Roads are not only for driving on, they are also for parking, save those with restrictions.

If you are a law abiding motorist not even the police can have issue with you by very definition.

Why your employers think they can is quite baffling.

There may be neighbourly relation issues here but certainly no business issue for your employer so they can't fall back on that.

Uncertain

Gilbert2 wrote: »

The employer has no business interest to justify it.

You don't know that in this case.

They most certainly could make it a condition of employment for new staff. Apart from unlawful discrimination issues, working time directive, NMW and health and safety issues they can lay down pretty much whatever terms they like. Either you take the job on those terms or you don't - simples! If they can't get suitable staff on the terms offered they may have to re-think them but that is market forces and doesn't make the terms unlawful.

As I have said before, applying it to existing staff who have served long enough to have UD protection may be more complex.

What a union may or may not have achieved elsewhere by, ultimately, threatening strike action is another matter.

One final attempt......

I offer you a job. One of the terms of the contract is that you do not park in the streets within half a mile of my business during working hours. If you accept the job (and you don't have to) you have agreed to that contractual term.

If you then break that term I can discipline and ultimately dismiss you. That has nothing to do with whether you are breaking the law but everything to do with the fact that you have broken the contract you chose to enter into.

It is no different to a requirement that you don't work for somebody else in the evenings or that you live within ten miles. You can choose whether to accept the job on those terms or not. What you can't do is accept the job and then ignore any terms you don't like.

Pete111

I'm absolutely loving this thread.

On the one side you have the folk who are coming at this very much as 'disgusted from Tunbridge Wells' and invoking everything from 100k unfair dismissal cases (tricky when UD is a maximum of 85 odd k..) and even referencing the Nazis (brilliant!)

The other side is occupied by Uncertain and LD who only have facts, and reality to rely on. Tricky to pick a winner...

It seems quite obvious that in this instance the council has approached the company regarding the residents complaints. The company has chosen to ask it's staff to refrain from parking in the relevant area. If staff continue to do so the council will most likely make it residents only parking anyway so this is a the most sensible approach to a difficult issue.

This has upset the staff (and yes, I do see why). However, as Uncertain and LD have said, contracts can be altered and the only test of fairness in the event of a dispute is an ET following some form of dismissal - quite a risk over a parking space no?

In addition most contracts reference company policies that should be adhered to (these may not be contractual - ie no need to consult in quite the same way) A parking policy which clearly stated that employees are asked not to park locally etc etc would be pretty simple to draw up and enact....

OP. Ultimately what are you and your colleagues going to do? Keep parking there and the council will take it away and you will attract the wrath of the firm over a silly issue you can't win anyway. I suggest therefore that you look at alternatives.

P

Uncertain

Pete111 wrote: »

On the one side you have the folk who are coming at this very much as 'disgusted from Tunbridge Wells' and invoking everything from 100k unfair dismissal cases (tricky when UD is a maximum of 85 odd k..) and even referencing the Nazis (brilliant!)

The other side is occupied by Uncertain and LD who only have facts, and reality to rely on. Tricky to pick a winner...

Priceless :T

This has upset the staff (and yes, I do see why).

And so do I

However, as Uncertain and LD have said, contracts can be altered and the only test of fairness in the event of a dispute is an ET following some form of dismissal - quite a risk over a parking space no?

In the current economic climate it would be madness!

In addition most contracts reference company policies that should be adhered to (these may not be contractual - ie no need to consult in quite the same way) A parking policy which clearly stated that employees are asked not to park locally etc etc would be pretty simple to draw up and enact....

Of course it would, good to see that somebody has the sense to realise it!

OP. Ultimately what are you and your colleagues going to do? Keep parking there and the council will take it away and you will attract the wrath of the firm over a silly issue you can't win anyway. I suggest therefore that you look at alternatives.

Wise words....


Gilbert2 is right in one respect though.

Yes it is possible that is some workplaces where there is a strong union presence they could persuade / negotiate / intimidate the management to drop the idea but that has nothing whatever to do with the legal position.

Pete111

Uncertain wrote: »

Priceless :T



And so do I



In the current economic climate it would be madness!



Of course it would, good to see that somebody has the sense to realise it!



Wise words....


Gilbert2 is right in one respect though.

Yes it is possible that is some workplaces where there is a strong union presence they could persuade / negotiate / intimidate the management to drop the idea but that has nothing whatever to do with the legal position.

Absolutely. A strong union can of course give Mgt pause for thought as regards any contentious issue. However in this case a third party that neither the mgt, staff nor any union can control (the council) will have the final say.

If they keep parking there, it will be residents only by the years end. So why risk p*ssing off your employer to acheive the square route of b*gger all?

Uncertain

Pete111 wrote: »

If they keep parking there, it will be residents only by the years end. So why risk p*ssing off your employer to acheive the square route of b*gger all?

I suspect that is too technical for some of the posters on this thread!

Justicia

Pete111 wrote: »

I'm absolutely loving this thread.

On the one side you have the folk who are coming at this very much as 'disgusted from Tunbridge Wells' and invoking everything from 100k unfair dismissal cases (tricky when UD is a maximum of 85 odd k..) and even referencing the Nazis (brilliant!)

The other side is occupied by Uncertain and LD who only have facts, and reality to rely on. Tricky to pick a winner...

You have forgotten the middle; the folk providing us with irrelevant information about their businesses (as usual), resulting in unnecessary scrolling...

Gilbert2

Uncertain wrote: »

You don't know that in this case.

They most certainly could make it a condition of employment for new staff. Apart from unlawful discrimination issues, working time directive, NMW and health and safety issues they can lay down pretty much whatever terms they like. Either you take the job on those terms or you don't - simples! If they can't get suitable staff on the terms offered they may have to re-think them but that is market forces and doesn't make the terms unlawful.

.

But you don't know the employer does have a business interest to justify it either do you?

Therefore, I suggest the OP posts back to put a little more meat on the bone in order for forum members to respond with.

However, I'd like to raise a few issues with your post.

1 You mention that a contract could state no employee can park within .5 of a mile of the business address.

a How would this be monitored?

b What would happen to an employee who had parked .49 miles away?

2 As the employer has ordered employees to walk the final .5 miles to work then, I'd argue, the employer has a duty of care toward their employees during this time.

Essentially they are expanding their liability to include public roads and highways that may need crossing.

a What do you do if an employee has an accident?

b What would you do if an employee was attacked?

(We know this business has shift work and maybe a female employee would not be comfortable walking late at night on her own to work)

c If they haven't been ordered to walk then who picks up the expense of this policy?

3 Just because you include a clause in a contract, doesn't mean it is lawful. You can put whatever you like in it but it may not mean a jot.

I'd say you would also need to overcome Human Rights Law.

Not even the state can impose a restriction on a law abiding motorist for no good reason, ie unless they transgress, like speeding.

a Why do you think an employer can impose a restriction on a private motorist via a contractual term of employment?

Roads are for driving and parking.

In my opinion, this clause would be unlawful, unworkable and, quite frankly, potentially dangerous for which the employer would be liable.

Contracts of any sort do not give anyone the right to include anything they like, especially as something as ridiculous as this.

getmore4less

What are they going to do if people live in these streets or have mates in the streets they want to visit.

This is a simple case of all stick to gethether and ignore the policy and any disipline, work under protest don't resign.

They can't sack everyone.

RichardD1970

Gilbert2 wrote: »

But you don't know the employer does have a business interest to justify it either do you?

Therefore, I suggest the OP posts back to put a little more meat on the bone in order for forum members to respond with.

However, I'd like to raise a few issues with your post.

1 You mention that a contract could state no employee can park within .5 of a mile of the business address.

a How would this be monitored?

b What would happen to an employee who had parked .49 miles away?

2 As the employer has ordered employees to walk the final .5 miles to work then, I'd argue, the employer has a duty of care toward their employees during this time.

a What do you do if an employee has an accident?

b What would you do if an employee was attacked?

(We know this business has shift work and maybe a female employee would not be comfortable walking late at night on her own to work)

c If they haven't been ordered to walk then who picks up the expense of this policy?

3 Just because you include a clause in a contract, doesn't mean it is lawful. You can put whatever you like in it but it may not mean a jot.

I'd say you would also need to overcome Human Rights Law.

Not even the state can impose a restriction on a law abiding motorist for no good reason, ie unless they transgress, like speeding.

a Why do you think an employer can impose a restriction on a private motorist via a contractual term of employment?

Roads are for driving and parking.

In my opinion, this clause would be unlawful, unworkable and, quite frankly, potentially dangerous for which the employer would be liable.

Contracts of any sort do not give anyone the right to include anything they like, especially as something as ridiculous as this.

You just don't get it do you. It has nothing to do with the law, or the legality of parking on the streets in question.

If your contract says that you are not allowed to park there then, if you do, you are in breach of your contract and face the consequences.

As for the company being liable for the safety of their staff having to walk, what about the people who use public transport and have to walk from the bus stop/train station. It's only the same situation.

Argue as much as you like, cry Human Rights etc.

You are wrong.

The legal professionals are right.