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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll