header-logo header-logo

12 February 2014 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7594 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 12 February 2014

web_smith_2

Ian Smith tackles a tricky employment law conundrum

Sometimes in employment law an apparently simple employment question fails to give rise to an equally simple legal answer. One such question has arisen again recently. If an employee is charged with an offence which means they cannot attend work (usually because of a remand in custody, but here for a different reason) does the employer have to continue paying wages? The optimum position here is if the contract contains an express clause permitting (or not permitting) a suspension without pay in the relevant circumstances. However, in the lack of that the position becomes more complex. The common law position is that the consideration for wages is not actual work, but readiness and willingness to work. This means that there may be a continuing entitlement to wages in the case of sickness, injury or other unavoidable impediment. It is this last element that causes the problem here—is being charged with an offence “unavoidable”?

Ekwelem v Excel Passenger Service Ltd

The point arose directly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll