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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll