Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3622 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

It's been a while since I've been on this site but could really do with a bit of advice please.

Without giving away too much information, someone I work with has been suspended for negligence by the Board.

The employee is good friends with the manager here and the manager had been informed a number of times of this negligence but either covered it up or decided to turn a blind eye.

As the manager would not do anything about it, the employee was reported to the Board and they have now been suspended on full pay (which is the norm here).

The manager has told me today as I do the payroll that the company will also have to pay them for the overtime shifts they had been booked in for even though they were on suspension. :confused:

Can anyone tell me if this is true or if it is, as I suspect, the manager is just trying to get the employee more money for Christmas!

Any help would be much appreciated. Lots of things going on here that either dont make sense at all at the moment! :-|


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspension should be on full pay. It's not intended as a punishment, as this person hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.

 

If they would have earned the overtime pay had they not been suspended, I think it's reasonable that they be paid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

Although you think it's reasonable, is it actually a legal requirement??


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspension is a without prejudice action and the employee should not be out of pocket as a consequence. Therefore, if he/she would normally have been paid these shifts then such payments should continue.

 

I can't personally come up with any specific legislation/case law to say that you must pay it but I'm pretty confident that the employee would win any case for the money against your employer.

 

Just to add that our HR department instructed such payments were to be paid in suspension cases, so there may be something out there stipulating this.


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, quite simply, the employer would be in breach of contract if they didn't pay. So as WelshMam says, the employer could sue, and would almost certainly win.

 

Probably the important thing to note here is that the employer should address the issue and resolve it without undue delay. The employee shouldn't be languishing on suspension for any longer than is neccessary.

Edited by elpulpo
spelling. again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, make sure that you have that in writing.


Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An employer can only suspend someone without renumeration if there is a provision within the contract to do so. If he was due to work overtime then yes, his pay should include that. Suspension is not a disciplinary action, it is only (in some cases) a neccesity to allow a full investigation into allegations to be performed. He has a right "not to suffer detriment". The refusal of overtime pay, had he been due to work overtime is a financial detriment.

 

In the case of an EAT, this would likely be considered an unlawful deduction from wages, provided the appealant is ready, able and willing to work - which means unless he is unfit for work medically or is unwilling, or otherwise "not ready" *out of the country for example, then he should receive his basic pay plus any enhancements he would have received *overtime pay for example, had he not been placed on suspension.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

If my advice has been helpful, please show your gratitude by taking a moment to click on the star icon on the bottom strip of my post

:)

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

download the CAG toolbar

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...