header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 12 February 2014

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll