A query on work & parking
Discussion
As for the original question on legality - the only way to test this would be for an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that the company had made things so miserable it was tantamount to dismissal. I think an extended commute wouldn't fly as grounds (constructive dismissal is notoriously hard to prove). In any case, a victory for one employee on that basis wouldn't set any real precedent as each case tends to be considered on its individual merits.
If you think about it, this sort of thing happens a lot. It has certainly happened to me - company I worked for moved from a building with ample parking to one with parking for top brass only. It was of a few factors in my leaving. They no longer exist and the staff who stayed were made redundant when the office closed.
If you think about it, this sort of thing happens a lot. It has certainly happened to me - company I worked for moved from a building with ample parking to one with parking for top brass only. It was of a few factors in my leaving. They no longer exist and the staff who stayed were made redundant when the office closed.
Due to closure of a factory I worked at I was relocated to another one 30miles further away. Most were made redundant.
As part of the move(, about 40 of us) were given
a) option to have house move costs paid for estate agent fees, removals fees etc
OR
b). Have allowances for 2 years comprising payment for teavel time for the 30 miles and mileage allowance.
After 2 years it stopped.
Very fair treatment.
I opted for b) and we grouped together to car share and that continued thereafter.
This was typical of the company attitude to employees resulting in loyalty, low employee turnover etc.
Shame more companies don't behave similarly.
In truth many may not be financially able to incur such costs.
A small minority at the second factory did eventually make some comments about the deal but then you can't please everyone.
As part of the move(, about 40 of us) were given
a) option to have house move costs paid for estate agent fees, removals fees etc
OR
b). Have allowances for 2 years comprising payment for teavel time for the 30 miles and mileage allowance.
After 2 years it stopped.
Very fair treatment.
I opted for b) and we grouped together to car share and that continued thereafter.
This was typical of the company attitude to employees resulting in loyalty, low employee turnover etc.
Shame more companies don't behave similarly.
In truth many may not be financially able to incur such costs.
A small minority at the second factory did eventually make some comments about the deal but then you can't please everyone.
V8forweekends said:
It has certainly happened to me - company I worked for moved from a building with ample parking to one with parking for top brass only
Hmmmm. This is a good point. Does the CEO also have to get the Park & Ride ? I bet he doesn't......PS am also assuming that the Park & Ride us a public one not one laid on by the company
Andehh said:
...it is fairly close to a city centre - close enough to not have on street parking sufficiently near by but not so close that the bus depot is next door.
Is there really not another alternative?Surely any city centre has parking available less than 30 minutes' walk away?
Couldn't the employee just drive in as they do now but park in one of the city's car public parks and then walk the 5-10 mins from there to the office?
I'm wondering if there's more to this than the P&R itself. Is it that the employee would have to pay to park if they want to avoid the P&R solution and hence that's the real gripe?
Lol! First world problems. Yes it's very nice to park right next to your workplace, but unfortunately hundreds and thousands of workers up and down the country don't have this opportunity, including myself and I own my company property. 15 minute walk each morning, but it keeps me fit....
Regarding the question, I guess you just have to suck it up.
Regarding the question, I guess you just have to suck it up.
tigger1 said:
Out of interest, which town or city? 45 minutes seems a long bus ride into a town centre.
45mins is just me going for the worse case scenario for what it would have been for someone living in my neck of the words. 20min actual bus journey (inc bus sat waiting before it can leave), 10 min potential wait for the next bus, 10min further to walk from the bus drop off point to some of the offices on site. 5-10 mins for finding parking & walking to bus stop at actual parking area.Thanks all for the replies, just curious to see what the general consensus was!
Andehh said:
tigger1 said:
Out of interest, which town or city? 45 minutes seems a long bus ride into a town centre.
45mins is just me going for the worse case scenario for what it would have been for someone living in my neck of the words. 20min actual bus journey (inc bus sat waiting before it can leave), 10 min potential wait for the next bus, 10min further to walk from the bus drop off point to some of the offices on site. 5-10 mins for finding parking & walking to bus stop at actual parking area.mp3manager said:
I guess you don't employ any physically disabled people then?
Is there a requirement to provided disabled parking? I've worked for a government department in London which had no parking on site at all, there simply wasn't a car park in the building.To answer the OP unless its in his contract that he gets on site parking then I can't see how its covered legally. When I started in my current position it was central London, and a 40 minute train journey. The office moved to Watford and now my costs have doubled, and the journey time is 2 hours each way.
I've started driving instead and its 65 miles each way, and limited on site parking. I probably get a space twice per week, and the rest of the time I have to park in the local car park. this is anything from 6 to 15 per day depending on whats available.
The company gave us plenty of notice of the move, but no compensation for any extra travel etc.
Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 13th December 08:47
Not commenting on this partilicular case, however something doesn't always have to be included in a written contract to become a contractual right. Sufficient acts or ommissions can lead to implied contractual rights.
I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
janesmith1950 said:
Not commenting on this partilicular case, however something doesn't always have to be included in a written contract to become a contractual right. Sufficient acts or ommissions can lead to implied contractual rights.
I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
They wouldn't be investing in a new office if there wasn't a 'pressing business need' for it. I know what you're saying but that would be very easy for the employer to argue in this situation.I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
The Surveyor said:
janesmith1950 said:
Not commenting on this partilicular case, however something doesn't always have to be included in a written contract to become a contractual right. Sufficient acts or ommissions can lead to implied contractual rights.
I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
They wouldn't be investing in a new office if there wasn't a 'pressing business need' for it. I know what you're saying but that would be very easy for the employer to argue in this situation.I can see how providing free parking on site, then removing it, could be seen as a change to employees' terms. If that were the case, and the employer were challenged, I expect they'd need to illustrate a pressing business need sufficient to warrant a unilateral change in terms.
janesmith1950 said:
The Surveyor said:
They wouldn't be investing in a new office if there wasn't a 'pressing business need' for it. I know what you're saying but that would be very easy for the employer to argue in this situation.
Hence the opening sentence of my post. 
The Surveyor said:
Devil2575 said:
That's an assumption and a half.
It is indeed an assumption and if this company was getting rid of the parking for an ornamental garden, I would agree with you. But there are very few occasions when a company extends their premises without there being a business need. I'm sure the need to extend will be necessary, but it's the other decisions that follow from this that are less clear.
One example I heard was that a business decided that it needed to reduce costs. This was based on a very real business need.
One of the ways they wanted to achieve this was by reducing staff Ts&Cs, removing free coffee machines, asking people to provide their own pens etc. At the same time the need to save money was not considered to be dire enough to remove the company paid for cars and phones from several senior managers spouses, or for the site director to only have one company car and not three. Also the company then gave bonuses worth almost 20% of that saving to the site senior management for hitting the cost saving target.
Strategic decisions are normally made for the right reasons, it's in the execution that some pretty dodgy stuff goes on.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 14th December 13:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff