fine at work... disciplinary threat

HO87

marlot wrote: »

People on here may be expert at parking law, but probably less well informed on employment issues.

I'm assuming the threat of disciplinary is not for ignoring a parking company's tickets, but for not following your employer's instruction not to park there.

....disciplinary procedure."

By the same token those who visit this board occasionally may well be unaware of the regularity with which disciplinary action is threatened against hospital staff who do not pay "fines" not because of the misuse of spaces, yellow lines or cross-hatching.

A quick check of various NHS Trust parking policies will find them littered with such words as "offences", "deterrent", "fines", "penalties" all of which have specifically sunk civil actions that several Trusts have launched (Aintree NHS Trust v Perera is a good example). One wonders what a Tribunal's opinion would be should a member of one of the Trust's staff appear before it having been disciplined for failing to pay a "penalty" that the Trust has absolutely no legal power to impose or enforce?

I fully accept that NHS Trusts have an extremely difficult job in attempting to manage what is inevitably an entirely insufficient resource but acting beyond their legal powers in seeking to enforce "penalties" on any recipient (let alone a staff member) is as morally reprehensible as the action they are seeking to eliminate.

marlot

HO87 wrote: »

...One wonders what a Tribunal's opinion would be should a member of one of the Trust's staff appear before it having been disciplined for failing to pay a "penalty" that the Trust has absolutely no legal power to impose or enforce?..

I agree it would be a foolish HR person who took that route. And all the points you raised would be highly relevant.

I guess the question is on what grounds the disciplinary is being threatened. If its for not settling a parking 'fine' then we can argue the legality of the parking 'fines'.

If, however, the threat is of a disciplinary based simply on them parking where the trust has told them not to park. ie. Disobeying a (legal) instruction, then I'd suggest that a different defence is needed. If staff can be disciplined for smoking in the wrong location, I'm sure they can also be disciplined for parking in the wrong location.

This is (potentially) a much bigger fight than taking on a parking company. But if the OP has the backing of their union then all power to their elbow.

I want to help the OP. I just want them to be aware of the potential risks they face if their HR department choose a different way of tackling the perceived issue.

Stroma

No the defence is the same as every other private parking issue, just because its a trust it doesn't make them any more special than a tesco, this is purely civil dispute nothing else. We cannot get involved in the employment status as its beyond what we can do. But after seeing hundreds of these I have never seen one report of someone being disciplined .

All we are dealing here is this situation with ukcps, and they must or mustn't do, the OP should appeal and demand a popla code to appeal independently if rejected, how ukcps deals with the appeal is up to them, so if the hospital does that, ukcps must still abide by the code of practice , and they must decide within 35 days of the original challenge. If they fail it times out!

LittleMax

Then I do think you should have made that clear to OP at the beginning that you could not advise on employment law, rather than stating that disciplinary action was ridiculous notion. It should have been made clear that no disciplinary action could be linked directly to the parking company and them releasing information to the trust, but that OP would need to seek separate advice about other disciplinary action that may result as you are not advising about employment law. Then, when those of us who do know something of employment law advised on that aspect, it was unfair of you to shoot us down and imply to OP that we could be ignored, as we are "the morality police."

Part of what I like about MSE is that when you request advice, you can get an answer from every angle ... you shouldn't have to post in several different fora to get a complete answer.

Guys_Dad

The OP raised the matter of disciplinary repercussions. Were I the recipient, I would do the following.

1. As email/notification came from the PPC, I would email HR and my Union to ask if there was any validity in the threat and why a PPC is in a position to threaten me with disciplinary proceedings, or have they exceeded their authority. HR and the Unions would need to agree a statement.

2. Work disciplinary circumstances. Obviously far reaching as you may recall from a recent incident where a trainee female accountant drove into a cyclist and then posted a twitter comment. Her firm have her under a disciplinary investigation at present for bringing company into disrepute, although it wasn't identified in the tweet.

Stroma

LittleMax wrote: »

Then I do think you should have made that clear to OP at the beginning that you could not advise on employment law, rather than stating that disciplinary action was ridiculous notion. It should have been made clear that no disciplinary action could be linked directly to the parking company and them releasing information to the trust, but that OP would need to seek separate advice about other disciplinary action that may result as you are not advising about employment law. Then, when those of us who do know something of employment law advised on that aspect, it was unfair of you to shoot us down and imply to OP that we could be ignored, as we are "the morality police."

Part of what I like about MSE is that when you request advice, you can get an answer from every angle ... you shouldn't have to post in several different fora to get a complete answer.

I think you should read my advice again

Stroma wrote: »

No they cannot discipline you for an alleged debt to a third party company, it would be akin of them trying to discipline you for a debt to Barclaycard. Your contract of employment would be key here, together with the parking policy of the hospital. I presume this in England yes ?

I quite clearly said that the contract of employment is key ! I also stated that an employer cannot discipline you for an alleged debt to an unconnected third party company!

So please don't put words in my mouth, I know what I'm advising, and that is this issue with a parking company, how the issue has arisen is beyond what we can offer here, what could happen afterwards is not something we can help with here.

All we are advising is on the alleged breach of contract by the OP at the hospital, that breach can be defended against on many different aspects, one of the things that can help is a copy of the parking policy, which no doubt says that they issue fines/penalties and that offences or illegality has occurred. This in a popla defence helps to get this scam cancelled.

ILW

It could be that the "fine" and the disciplinary action are two totally separate issues. A possibility that Stroma either refuses or cannot address.

atilla

ILW wrote: »

It could be that the "fine" and the disciplinary action are two totally separate issues. A possibility that Stroma either refuses or cannot address.

And it could be they are of no relevance whatsoever.
You seen the OPs Contract? Hospital policy? anything?
Thought not.

Coupon-mad

ILW wrote: »

It could be that the "fine" and the disciplinary action are two totally separate issues. A possibility that Stroma either refuses or cannot address.

But it's not a fine as we all know, it's an invoice that has a set appeals procedure. And it's the OP's right to appeal the allegation in accordance with the POF Act.

No disciplinary action could be aimed at her on the back of an invoice currently being rightfully appealed (and subsequently won of course, as we know). Not unless the bosses had some other axe to grind or other issue or evidence to raise with her.

HO87

ILW wrote: »

It could be that the "fine" and the disciplinary action are two totally separate issues. A possibility that Stroma either refuses or cannot address.

An entirely fair comment however, the OP in the opening post said:

sue.b1 wrote: »

I have received a fine, which reading many posts I'm happy to ignore. However an e mail has been sent to all staff saying parking fines & issues arising will be passed to managers who may take disciplinary action against offenders.
UKCPS posted the notice, I was parked in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge. I'm a nurse parking at my hospital base.
I'm protesting at the charges for staff parking hence my parking in that space.

We each probably read this in our own way but it is not wholly unreasonable to infer from those words that disciplinary action is being directly connected to the parking fine and issues arising (non-payment, perhaps) rather than failing to follow parking rules/instructions etc. We are relying on the OP to give us a clear and representative account of that email but there is a significant difference between being threatened for failure to abide by parking rules and failing to pay a so-called "fine". There remains the chance that, in the employers view, the two are inextricably linked and part of those rules require staff to promptly settle or appeal any "fines" they incur. If that is so then the legality or otherwise of the "fines" is entirely relevant aside from the fact that the employer would be restricting a persons rights to defend themselves were they to seek to enforce payment by them. I do not, however, in any way condone what the OP is doing by way of protest and suspect that a deal pain awaits if they persist.

As Stroma has correctly stated the OP's contract of employment is key. One suspects that this might just be the latest action in a sequence of events that probably started some time ago when staff were informed that a new enforcement regime was to be put in place and that they were expected to abide by it. If the OP did not notify their employer of their disagreement with that (in writing of course) at the time or within a reasonable period then they will be deemed to have accepted what will form part of their contract. But that remains to be seen.

Of course there is a purely employment law aspect to the OP's question but with respect they have posted on a parking forum not one dedicated to employment law and to berate posters for not stating what is reasonably obvious is rather pointless.