Suspension query

[Er Indoorz]

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.

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! :-|

[elpulpo]

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.

[Er Indoorz]

Thanks for your reply.

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

[WelshMam2009]

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.

[elpulpo]

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 December 11, 2009 by elpulpo
spelling. again

[borisbeaver]

Also, make sure that you have that in writing.

[ErikaPNP]

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.