Volunteers with disabilities

[2030720310]

I have recently been volunteering at a well-known heritage line, as a station assistant. However, I have a speech impediment (stammer) which means my rate of speech is significantly slower.

I was happy to have my role and worked hard, but after a couple of months I was informed that I was unsuitable for interacting with the customers, and would be moved onto a different department. I was offered days I could not do, due to my work, and have not been offered another role.

My question is, how prevalent across the heritage railway 'sector' is the problem is discrimination against those with disabilities?

In my opinion, heritage railways struggle to accomodate people who would like to get involved and are hindered by their personal circumstances. I feel the onus should be on the railway to accomodate such people as far as safely possible, rather than restricting them and their roles.

 

[steevp]

Sounds like your treatment is contrary to the equality act to me (not that I am any kind of expert) - organisations should take reasonable steps to accommodate people. I am minded of the recent case concerning a scout who was banned from going on outings and his parents successfully sued for compensation. Not that I am suggesting that you sue the organisation, but it sounds like they don't think that the rules that are intended to help people participate apply to them. <rant over>

 

[2030720310]

I read up a little bit about the Equality Act (2010) and unfortunately I don't think it applies to volunteers. Regardless, while I don't want to look for pity from others, I think it's important to raise awareness that not all parts of railway volunteering are as 'welcoming' as they would perhaps like to present.

 

[Adlington]

Shouldn't a disabled person be, first of all, able to do the job? An extreme case: a blind lorry/train driver???
If the OP has a speech impediment which makes him unsuitable for interacting with the customers, would it really be discrimination to offer him an alternative job (which did happen)?

 

[bnm]

The Supreme Court has ruled that volunteers are unlikely to be covered by anti-discrimination legislation. Particularly when there's not a contract of employment. A 'volunteer agreement' is insufficient. The lack of a wage is also highly relevant.

That's not to say that organisations should ride roughshod over disabled volunteers. To take you away from a role you enjoyed and offer an alternative that you couldn't do, as the hours were different, smacks of a constructive way of getting rid of you.

There's little legal recourse. However, naming and shaming is an option. The local press may take up the story.

 

[2030720310]

Shouldn't a disabled person be, first of all, able to do the job? An extreme case: a blind lorry/train driver???
If the OP has a speech impediment which makes him unsuitable for interacting with the customers, would it really be discrimination to offer him an alternative job (which did happen)?

I fully agree and understand that there is a significant safety aspect related to a railway role. I just feel that in this case (and I'm afraid I can only speak for myself) there would be ways to accommodate someone with a disability such as a speech impediment, such as allocating them with another worker who can answer requests when they (I) get really 'stuck'. This obviously comes with restrictions on who can volunteer when, and with me, but I would be happy to only volunteer when extra provisions could be guaranteed.

As an aside, I have also held down a retail-based job, where communicating with customers was a key part, and I managed reasonably well in this environment. The railway were aware of this, and have been reminded of this in my recent correspondence with them.

I would be sad to name and shame the railway in question, because I enjoyed the time I had volunteering there, and many of the people were genuinely welcoming and understanding. However, if it helps other people whose opportunities have been unnecessarily limited, this may be one course of action to take.

Anyway, thank you for your responses, I'll respond in the future as and when I'm online!

 

[53703]

I have recently been volunteering at a well-known heritage line, as a station assistant. However, I have a speech impediment (stammer) which means my rate of speech is significantly slower.

I was happy to have my role and worked hard, but after a couple of months I was informed that I was unsuitable for interacting with the customers, and would be moved onto a different department. I was offered days I could not do, due to my work, and have not been offered another role.

My question is, how prevalent across the heritage railway 'sector' is the problem is discrimination against those with disabilities?

In my opinion, heritage railways struggle to accomodate people who would like to get involved and are hindered by their personal circumstances. I feel the onus should be on the railway to accomodate such people as far as safely possible, rather than restricting them and their roles.

Sounds like you've been treated very harshly, try and find somewhere else that would appreciate your enthusiasm and don't let your recent experience put you off. Good luck

 

[Flying Phil]

"My question is, how prevalent across the heritage railway 'sector' is the problem is discrimination against those with disabilities?"
I'm sorry to read about your problems and hope that it does not put you off totally.
In general however, I think most heritage railways do try to support those with disabilities. I know several lines have converted coaches to provide disabled access and most staff seem quite happy to go "the extra mile" to help with groups and individuals with the variety of special needs when they visit and travel on the trains. I am impressed that these groups are frequent visitors.

 

[Llanigraham]

"My question is, how prevalent across the heritage railway 'sector' is the problem is discrimination against those with disabilities?"
I'm sorry to read about your problems and hope that it does not put you off totally.
In general however, I think most heritage railways do try to support those with disabilities. I know several lines have converted coaches to provide disabled access and most staff seem quite happy to go "the extra mile" to help with groups and individuals with the variety of special needs when they visit and travel on the trains. I am impressed that these groups are frequent visitors.

I think you have misunderstood the gist of this thread. The OP is not complaining about the way a heritage line treats it's disabled visitors, as you mention, but the way it treats disabled volunteers that work on it.

 

[Flying Phil]

Llanigraham - I did understand that the main part of the thread was about the volunteer aspect, but the OP did write the question that I quoted. My answer was a more general way of saying that, I believe, most heritage railways do not discriminate, but in fact try to support, those with disabilities. His treatment was, I think, an exception (but we do not know the perspective from the railway.).

 

[SussexMan]

If the OP has a speech impediment which makes him unsuitable for interacting with the customers, would it really be discrimination to offer him an alternative job (which did happen)?

Sorry, but I find your response very poor. The OP says he has a stammer - so why would that make him unsuitable for interacting with the customers? Sounds to me like the OP is perfectly able to fulfil the role. Any adjustment needs to be made by the visitors to the railway.

 

[Dai Corner]

Sorry, but I find your response very poor. The OP says he has a stammer - so why would that make him unsuitable for interacting with the customers? Sounds to me like the OP is perfectly able to fulfil the role. Any adjustment needs to be made by the visitors to the railway.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if a deaf visitor who relied on lip-reading couldn't understand a volunteer with a stammer? Or vice-versa for that matter.

 

[tiptoptaff]

As this thread is about disability discrimination, in response to the comment its visitors that need to adjust, it is not. A business who has customers that may be disabled has to adjust to their needs, not the other way around.

 

[Dai Corner]

As this thread is about disability discrimination, in response to the comment its visitors that need to adjust, it is not. A business who has customers that may be disabled has to adjust to their needs, not the other way around.

Visitors to a preserved railway are customers, are they not? They're paying money in exchange for a train ride. Preserved railways and similar attractions are often complex combinations of charities and commercial businesses with paid staff and voluneers working alongside each other.

Quite a minefield as the OP has found.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Visitors to a preserved railway are customers, are they not? They're paying money in exchange for a train ride. Preserved railways and similar attractions are often complex combinations of charities and commercial businesses with paid staff and voluneers working alongside each other.

Quite a minefield as the OP has found.

I totally agree. The insinuation by another poster that it is the customers who should adjust to the "needs" of the business, and not the business adapt to the needs of the customer is totally wrong. apologies if that didn;t come across correctly

 

[Dai Corner]

I totally agree. The insinuation by another poster that it is the customers who should adjust to the "needs" of the business, and not the business adapt to the needs of the customer is totally wrong. apologies if that didn;t come across correctly

Sorry, I was agreeing with you and backing you up. I could have worded it better.

 

[SussexMan]

Seeing that it was me that made the comment "Any adjustment needs to be made by the visitors to the railway", either I've been misunderstood or discrimination is alive and well - hopefully the former.

My comment was made very specifically in relation to the issue the OP raised that having a stammer meant that they had been told they were unsuitable in a role that involved interacting with customers and that therefore they would be removed from that role and would be offered another role (presumably one that didn't involve interacting with customers). My comment was made because I felt that to be a clear case of discrimination and a real lack of understanding by the railway (or someone acting as an agent for the railway). I will make an assumption that the OP knows what they can and can't do and the only issue is that speech for them takes a bit longer. If I was a visitor to that railway and I asked the OP a question I would probably quite quickly realise that they had a stammer so I would adjust and just give them the time they needed to answer my question.

So that was where my comment came from. The "adjustment" being that I would just give the person more time - simple.

An additional comment:

The Supreme Court has ruled that volunteers are unlikely to be covered by anti-discrimination legislation.

Yes that is true in respect of volunteers claiming discrimination based on employment aspects of the Equality Act. However, that ruling does not cover the situation where an organisation offers volunteer opportunities which is likely to be classed as a service.

...it is possible that, when you are providing a volunteering opportunity for someone, this counts as providing them with a service. This means that the rest of this guide applies to your volunteers just as much as it does to your service users or clients. You should avoid unlawful discrimination in how you treat volunteers.

Source: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...how-your-organisation-should-treat-volunteers

Therefore the railway in question needs to think very carefully about the way it is treating its disabled volunteers as they may well be liable (compounded by the fact that the OP has not been offered an alternative role) under the Equality Act and the Equality & Human Rights Commission may well be interested. Personally I wouldn't go down the route of involving the press, but that's me.

 

[ffm]

The OP was offered anoither role, but they couldn't make the days that applied to it, they haven't been offered another one to that. The issue of whether any heritage railways discriminate against people is quite simple - no they don't and its nothing to do with whether they are employed, volunteer, or are customers - the Equaliuty Act would apply, but discrimination in employment wouldn't apply to a volunteer. Heritage railways will, or certainly should, do everything to make reasonable adjustments for someone, in this case such adjustment as having a second person alongside them seems reasonable, but may not have been possible. We would need both sides of the story. Perhaps the OP could consider speaking to the railway's volunteer organisers about other opportunities, as it is highly likley that the person who offered and alternative hasn't thought about further options and may be a volunteer themself with little time available to look into options/what they could be doing

 

[2030720310]

I am certainly not asking for any of the visitors to the railway to have to make any accommodations or alterations beyond giving people who stammer a bit more time to answer their questions. I have seen in other situations the majority of people have been patient and understanding, and, on the railway, were grateful when I was able to answer their questions.

I have had a couple of further emails with the railway, along the lines of being unable to work on the weekday they had offered, and asking if they had anything on a weekend. I have received 2 replies saying they would wait and see, and this seems fairly non-committal unfortunately.

I was quite interested briefly reading what SussexMan has quoted regarding the Equality Act etc. (thanks!) and I'll give that a further read before I decide how to approach any further interactions with this railway.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Llanigraham]

As a hearing disabled volunteer on a preserved/heritage railway I am rightly not allowed to do certain jobs, just as I was with Network Rail, and I can actually think of jobs where a stammering person may be in a similar situation. The OP states that he acts as a station assistant, which is open to many dfferent meanings, so to make a more meanigfull decision I think we need to know exactly what that job entails, for example, is it deemed "safety critical"?

 

[2030720310]

As a hearing disabled volunteer on a preserved/heritage railway I am rightly not allowed to do certain jobs, just as I was with Network Rail, and I can actually think of jobs where a stammering person may be in a similar situation. The OP states that he acts as a station assistant, which is open to many dfferent meanings, so to make a more meanigfull decision I think we need to know exactly what that job entails, for example, is it deemed "safety critical"?

Not really safety-critical, it was helping passengers find the station facilities, cafe, answer their queries, update a departure board, sweep platforms, empty bins and other related tasks.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have recently been volunteering at a well-known heritage line, as a station assistant. However, I have a speech impediment (stammer) which means my rate of speech is significantly slower.

I was happy to have my role and worked hard, but after a couple of months I was informed that I was unsuitable for interacting with the customers, and would be moved onto a different department. I was offered days I could not do, due to my work, and have not been offered another role.

My question is, how prevalent across the heritage railway 'sector' is the problem is discrimination against those with disabilities?

In my opinion, heritage railways struggle to accomodate people who would like to get involved and are hindered by their personal circumstances. I feel the onus should be on the railway to accomodate such people as far as safely possible, rather than restricting them and their roles.

It’s very disappointing to read this.

Obviously if someone is incapable of doing a particular job they should be offered something else but you say you were happy in the role, and have performed similar roles previously, which perhaps implies the decision was taken on the basis of someone who thinks you shouldn’t be doing that particular job without any rational basis for this view.

As mentioned above it is potentially unlawful for organisations providing a service (volunteering opportunities) to treat volunteers less favourable on the basis of disabilities.

Before going down that route I would try and bottom out the reason for the decision and perhaps escalate within the organisation - that might concentrate their minds a little and hopefully lead to you being reinstated.

 

[LowLevel]

I can't see why a speech impediment would make it impossible to be a station porter. The line I volunteer at makes great use of people who might struggle in other roles on the station teams. This includes people with learning disabilities, speech impediments and hearing or vision problems.

The nature of the role is that you're usually supported by other people in a team and this makes it ideal. On the face of it it sounds fairly disappointing.