Lawyer types, this ones for you.
Discussion
Ok, basically it goes like this.
Business has no provision for parking for employees, and so all staff park on double yellow lines outside the business.
The double yellows are unenforced due to no connection with those on the part of the road they were originally connected, and neither ends are "barred".
Business obtains parking area and instructs all employees to park there and not on the public highway.
Staff grudgingly comply as parking area is remote, unsecured, and unlit.
One employee refuses to park there and leaves their car parked in its previous position.
Over the period of 2 weeks, various staff are approached and told they MUST not park on the road by senior management who use various "methods" to break up opposition to the order.
Single employee remains steadfast and refuses to park anywhere except where they always did.
Gets approached by management and "actions" are taken....(no specifics just yet on those).
Employee invited to "disciplinary" meeting and fired the same day presumably for misconduct.
Now, besides all the questions of whether the dismissal was legal and their reasons valid,: Is a business allowed to order an employee to remove their (to all intents and purposes) legally parked vehicle whilst its on a PUBLIC highway??????
Is this then a valid reason to dismiss?
Can the employees refusal to comply be construed as "misconduct"?
Have they the legal authority to force an employee to park elsewhere other than where it was?
Remember, the employee had not actually done anything else wrong.
Whats the legal position here?
Thanks in advance.
Business has no provision for parking for employees, and so all staff park on double yellow lines outside the business.
The double yellows are unenforced due to no connection with those on the part of the road they were originally connected, and neither ends are "barred".
Business obtains parking area and instructs all employees to park there and not on the public highway.
Staff grudgingly comply as parking area is remote, unsecured, and unlit.
One employee refuses to park there and leaves their car parked in its previous position.
Over the period of 2 weeks, various staff are approached and told they MUST not park on the road by senior management who use various "methods" to break up opposition to the order.
Single employee remains steadfast and refuses to park anywhere except where they always did.
Gets approached by management and "actions" are taken....(no specifics just yet on those).
Employee invited to "disciplinary" meeting and fired the same day presumably for misconduct.
Now, besides all the questions of whether the dismissal was legal and their reasons valid,: Is a business allowed to order an employee to remove their (to all intents and purposes) legally parked vehicle whilst its on a PUBLIC highway??????
Is this then a valid reason to dismiss?
Can the employees refusal to comply be construed as "misconduct"?
Have they the legal authority to force an employee to park elsewhere other than where it was?
Remember, the employee had not actually done anything else wrong.
Whats the legal position here?
Thanks in advance.
Munter said:
The company might consider parking on the double yellows (legal or not) as bringing the company into disrepute. And depending on their contract might be grounds for dismissal.
Would this be the same if they parked around the corner on double yellows that were not visible from said workplace?If not then why the difference?
IANAL but I have done some tribunal stuff as an employer. The whole thing sounds remarkably dodgy to me ; i.e. unlawful dismissal. Unless the parking obstructs the business somehow (stops a large van getting in and out say) or somehow brings the business into disrepute, then presuming there is no other issue I cannot see it being a justified dismissal.
IANAL
Does the employee behaving as they do mean there is a real problem to the Company?
e.g. Does it make deliveries / access a problem for transport?
Does it bring the Company into disrepute? Bit like scamera vans speeding.
Does it result in a situation where a complete lack of trust exists between employer and employee?
I would argue not. A situation involving alleged fraud or misuse of company resources might, but it would have to be severe to get summary dismissal.
I can understand that it creates a situation where the Company is in an awkward position in that employees b,c,d ..... z xcan and will point to employee a and accuse on unequal treatment.
The issue of parking being provided some distance away in difficult circumstances, dark, not very secure and so on is a bit worrying if the Company then tries to force the employees to use that facility.
just my 2p
Does the employee behaving as they do mean there is a real problem to the Company?
e.g. Does it make deliveries / access a problem for transport?
Does it bring the Company into disrepute? Bit like scamera vans speeding.
Does it result in a situation where a complete lack of trust exists between employer and employee?
I would argue not. A situation involving alleged fraud or misuse of company resources might, but it would have to be severe to get summary dismissal.
I can understand that it creates a situation where the Company is in an awkward position in that employees b,c,d ..... z xcan and will point to employee a and accuse on unequal treatment.
The issue of parking being provided some distance away in difficult circumstances, dark, not very secure and so on is a bit worrying if the Company then tries to force the employees to use that facility.
just my 2p
If the double yellows are not technically legal then ergo no offence committed. In which case, the company have sacked someone for parking on a highway that a) they don't own and b) have no enforcement rights over.
Wouldn't the company have to prove that disrepute was brought upon the company (if indeed that was an excuse for the sacking)? i.e, a complaint from a customer or member of the public.
Wouldn't the company have to prove that disrepute was brought upon the company (if indeed that was an excuse for the sacking)? i.e, a complaint from a customer or member of the public.
Flat in Fifth said:
IANAL
Does the employee behaving as they do mean there is a real problem to the Company?
e.g. Does it make deliveries / access a problem for transport?
Does it bring the Company into disrepute? Bit like scamera vans speeding.
Does it result in a situation where a complete lack of trust exists between employer and employee?
I would argue not. A situation involving alleged fraud or misuse of company resources might, but it would have to be severe to get summary dismissal.
I can understand that it creates a situation where the Company is in an awkward position in that employees b,c,d ..... z xcan and will point to employee a and accuse on unequal treatment.
The issue of parking being provided some distance away in difficult circumstances, dark, not very secure and so on is a bit worrying if the Company then tries to force the employees to use that facility.
just my 2p
The issue of access has been cited as a reason for directing employees to park on the remote carpark, however im still interested to find out what legal authority they have to impose such an "order" on any of the employees.
Also, if a customer of the business was to park there, are they also subject to this "order"?
Where does the employers "authority" actually end?
Id suggest the interface between the pavement and the business.
But how they can connect the employees refusal to comply with a possibly "unlawfully"? applied "order" with Misconduct and make it a sackble offence????
>> Edited by deltafox on Wednesday 7th December 15:05
esselte said:
The company might consider parking on the double yellows (legal or not) as bringing the company into disrepute. And depending on their contract might be grounds for dismissal.
Would this be the same if they parked around the corner on double yellows that were not visible from said workplace?If not then why the difference?
I should probably have said i'm not a legal type!..
My thought process was I was trying to think up a reason for instant dismissal. And bringing the company into disrepute as I understand my contract here is grounds for instant dismissal. Deliberatley and repetedly Breaking a law in a company vehicle might be considered bringing the company into disrepute. Voila. But it's a bit flakey....
My understanding of Gross Misconduct (gleaned from here) is that it includes 'serious insubordination', so the grounds for dismissal could have been the repeated refusal of the employee to comply with the orders of the company (ie. to park elsewhere).
Alternatively, if the company treated each refusal as a "Minor Misconduct" then they add up to "Gross Misconduct".
IANAL though and this opinion is formed from reading the article I linked to above.
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 7th December 15:24
Alternatively, if the company treated each refusal as a "Minor Misconduct" then they add up to "Gross Misconduct".
IANAL though and this opinion is formed from reading the article I linked to above.
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 7th December 15:24
Doesn't the company have to follow due process and warn the employee that their continued refusal will be considered as grounds for dismissal under "gross misconduct" (or whatever grounds they finally used). To give the employee a chance to rectify their behaviour first. So maybe this is what they did in the "interview".
However, it does sound well dodgy and even if the company followed their disiplinary rules to the letter it may well still not be legal as they have to prove the request was reasonable and that failure to comply with the request rely required their final position.
I would suggest getting a good solicitor who knows employment law and quickly. You have a limited time to apply to an employment tribunal.
However, it does sound well dodgy and even if the company followed their disiplinary rules to the letter it may well still not be legal as they have to prove the request was reasonable and that failure to comply with the request rely required their final position.
I would suggest getting a good solicitor who knows employment law and quickly. You have a limited time to apply to an employment tribunal.
deltafox said:
IANAL
Does the employee behaving as they do mean there is a real problem to the Company?
e.g. Does it make deliveries / access a problem for transport?
Does it bring the Company into disrepute? Bit like scamera vans speeding.
Does it result in a situation where a complete lack of trust exists between employer and employee?
I would argue not. A situation involving alleged fraud or misuse of company resources might, but it would have to be severe to get summary dismissal.
I can understand that it creates a situation where the Company is in an awkward position in that employees b,c,d ..... z xcan and will point to employee a and accuse on unequal treatment.
The issue of parking being provided some distance away in difficult circumstances, dark, not very secure and so on is a bit worrying if the Company then tries to force the employees to use that facility.
just my 2p
The issue of access has been cited as a reason for directing employees to park on the remote carpark, however im still interested to find out what legal authority they have to impose such an "order" on any of the employees.
Also, if a customer of the business was to park there, are they also subject to this "order"?
Where does the employers "authority" actually end?
Id suggest the interface between the pavement and the business.
But how they can connect the employees refusal to comply with a possibly "unlawfully"? applied "order" with Misconduct and make it a sackble offence????
deltaf, the devil will be in the detail and of course we are pronouncing without any real "facts." No disrespect intended there but you know what I mean, one side of the story, third hand and all that.
Almost certainly any employee is required to obey "any reasonable request" from their supervisor. Is this a reasonable request? Probably. When the counselling and discussion has taken place as part of the disciplinary procudeure, has the employee raised, or even be allowed to raise the issues which give them concern? A myriad other things which might make the procedure outwith employment legislation.
Personal opinion only based on story as told. I think the employer is on a very sticky wicket here. But it does all depend.
If employee is parking outside company premises ie on a road maintained at public expense then so what? Apart from reasons already outlined. Unless it is a parking enforcement company.
Sorry for being vague.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 7th December 15:40
I think FIF is right. There is an issue here over the attitude of the employee - regardless whether they are in the right/wrong over the parking issue, if said bod insists against all warnings to do against his employer's wishes on this issue then how does this reflect on his general attitude to work for said employer?
We don't know all the facts. The employee could just be a general troublemaker and this is the thing that 'broke the camel's back'.
Also, consider that the employer is ignorant of the fact that the double yellows are unenforceable OR that they believe they may get hassle from the council. Maybe its a health & safety issue? The fact that the employer is ignorant of plain facts does not stop them from doing what they want. I've had a lifefull of employers telling me complete rubbish or including it in their contracts (differential notice periods, for example) and then get the old "its always been like that and we're not going to change it so put up with it" kind of response.
JJ
We don't know all the facts. The employee could just be a general troublemaker and this is the thing that 'broke the camel's back'.
Also, consider that the employer is ignorant of the fact that the double yellows are unenforceable OR that they believe they may get hassle from the council. Maybe its a health & safety issue? The fact that the employer is ignorant of plain facts does not stop them from doing what they want. I've had a lifefull of employers telling me complete rubbish or including it in their contracts (differential notice periods, for example) and then get the old "its always been like that and we're not going to change it so put up with it" kind of response.
JJ
Flat in Fifth said:
IANAL
Does the employee behaving as they do mean there is a real problem to the Company?
e.g. Does it make deliveries / access a problem for transport?
Does it bring the Company into disrepute? Bit like scamera vans speeding.
Does it result in a situation where a complete lack of trust exists between employer and employee?
I would argue not. A situation involving alleged fraud or misuse of company resources might, but it would have to be severe to get summary dismissal.
I can understand that it creates a situation where the Company is in an awkward position in that employees b,c,d ..... z xcan and will point to employee a and accuse on unequal treatment.
The issue of parking being provided some distance away in difficult circumstances, dark, not very secure and so on is a bit worrying if the Company then tries to force the employees to use that facility.
just my 2p
The issue of access has been cited as a reason for directing employees to park on the remote carpark, however im still interested to find out what legal authority they have to impose such an "order" on any of the employees.
Also, if a customer of the business was to park there, are they also subject to this "order"?
Where does the employers "authority" actually end?
Id suggest the interface between the pavement and the business.
But how they can connect the employees refusal to comply with a possibly "unlawfully"? applied "order" with Misconduct and make it a sackble offence????
deltaf, the devil will be in the detail and of course we are pronouncing without any real "facts." No disrespect intended there but you know what I mean, one side of the story, third hand and all that.
Almost certainly any employee is required to obey "any reasonable request" from their supervisor. Is this a reasonable request? Probably. When the counselling and discussion has taken place as part of the disciplinary procudeure, has the employee raised, or even be allowed to raise the issues which give them concern? A myriad other things which might make the procedure outwith employment legislation.
Personal opinion only based on story as told. I think the employer is on a very sticky wicket here. But it does all depend.
If employee is parking outside company premises ie on a road maintained at public expense then so what? Apart from reasons already outlined. Unless it is a parking enforcement company.
Sorry for being vague.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 7th December 15:40
You make some good points there FIF, especially the "reasonable" request part.
Is it reasonable to direct an employee to comply with an "order" made without them having the legal authority to do so though...?
Is their "request" going to a "demand" actually legal? thats the bit im trying to find out about at the moment! 
And if the request/demand is not a legal one, ie they dont have that authority, does that make the request less "reasonable"???
And following on from that, if the request is neither legal or reasonable, then it cant possibly be used as a reason for "misconduct"....or can it??
See where im going?
As an employer I know that only gross misconduct can be an offence warranting instant (summary) dismissal. An offence under the disciplinary code such as sexual harrassment of a colleague counts and will be upheld. Theft of company property even if the employee is charged has been grounds for finding against the employer on unfair dismissal.
I would not have thought that law enforcement issues can be grounds for dismissal. If the employee was warned by the company then the warnings would have given as formal written warnings on at least 2 occasions with requirements for improvement in performance etc.
Since the dismissed employee has not been reported for any parking offence then I would assume he would have good grounds for taking an unfair dismissal case. The way the law is loaded against the employer nowadays - its free anyway
I would not have thought that law enforcement issues can be grounds for dismissal. If the employee was warned by the company then the warnings would have given as formal written warnings on at least 2 occasions with requirements for improvement in performance etc.
Since the dismissed employee has not been reported for any parking offence then I would assume he would have good grounds for taking an unfair dismissal case. The way the law is loaded against the employer nowadays - its free anyway
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff