Suspension from work is a draconian measure and should only be used as a last resort, but there are times when an employer has little, if any, option other than to suspend. In fact, failure to suspend an employee can leave an employer with a dilemma, particularly if they are considering a dismissal for gross misconduct. If the offence is so serious that it justifies summary dismissal and the employee continues to work up to the disciplinary hearing, it sheds doubt on the seriousness of the offence in the first place.
Suspension in itself is not a disciplinary sanction, and employers should make that abundantly clear when suspending someone.
Pay or not?
Generally, suspension is set out in the disciplinary policy and is usually paid, unless there is a contractual right to suspend without pay - which is rare. It stands to reason that if an employer maintains it is not a sanction, then it should be paid.
If it is not paid an employer may find that an employee resigns and claims constructive unfair dismissal. It may be the case that they would be dismissed in any event, following an investigation, but it still leaves the employee free to make a breach of contract claim too.
In most instances, when an allegation is made which is sufficiently serious and the consequences will likely be dismissal, suspension is the preferred option. Sometimes, during an investigation process, evidence will come to light which escalates an allegation of misconduct and suspension might then be an appropriate step to take.
Suspension for how long?
How long is a piece of string? In employment tribunals it is not uncommon for employers to lose a case because the suspended employee has been away from the workplace far too long. Suspension should only be as long as is reasonably necessary. Notwithstanding an employee is suspended on full pay, it does not give the employer the right to suspend indefinitely. So when an employee is suspended any disciplinary investigation should be undertaken swiftly.
What if the employee goes sick whilst suspended?
It often happens. An employee is suspended and subsequently invited to a disciplinary meeting, but in the intervening period they go sick with stress and anxiety. Should the employer continue to provide full pay or move to contractual sick pay or SSP?
As I stated earlier employers should have a clause which deals with suspension and invariably it will state that the employee will receive full pay whilst suspended. This is because the employer has an obligation under the employment contract to provide work and the employee is ‘ready and willing’ to undertake the work.
However, if the employee is no longer ready and willing due to their sickness there may have a case for saying that tStatutory Sick Pay should only be paid for as long as that period of sickness lasts (unless they are contractually entitled to full pay during sickness absence).
However, technically the employer would be in breach of contract as the employee is still suspended and the suspension clause has kicked in. Of course, it may say that when staff go sick the suspension clause can be lifted for as long as the sickness lasts and then suspension kicks back in when the employee is fit again, thereby avoiding the need to give full pay and not breach the contract.
However, in my opinion, this would be a risky approach but it is not beyond the realms of possibility, although a tribunal may consider that the lifting and then re-imposition of the suspension undermines the severity of the issue in a gross misconduct case.
The best approach for an employer would be to continue to pay full pay until the suspension is lifted which will be when the employee has had the benefit of seeing through the disciplinary process. If this means paying a couple of weeks extra due to a rescheduled meeting it may be better to grin and bear it. If the sickness becomes long term the employer always has the option of holding the disciplinary meeting in the employee’s absence, which if done correctly shouldn’t pose any problems.
Muslim mum asked to wear ‘tighter clothes’ and had rotten fruit thrown at her by boss, wins nearly £30k payout
The London Employment Tribunal has ordered the boss of a posh greengrocer to pay his former employee £27,715 in damages for sexual harassment. The Muslim woman who had worked at Elisa Organic and Whole Foods in Shepherd’s Bush in west London had accused Engin Babur of telling her to wear tight clothing and throwing rotten fruit at her. Eastern Eye
CPS entitled to cut pay of solicitor who moved north
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was entitled to cut the pay of a senior Crown prosecutor who worked from home and moved from Bedford to the north-east, an employment tribunal has ruled. Employment Judge Langridge found nothing to support the solicitor’s view that she should be paid according to the CPS region for which she worked, the south-east, and not where she lived. Legalfutures
Employment tribunal awards over £13,000 in deducted wages to dentist who worked as Covid vaccinator
A dentist who worked as a Covid-19 vaccinator without being paid the sessional rate for dental contractors has been awarded just over £13,000 by an employment tribunal after it found her wages had been unlawfully deducted.
Audrey Kershaw, who qualified as a dentist in 1987, raised the claim against Tayside Health Board arguing that she had been underpaid for her work as a vaccinator, which arose from the fact that she had qualified as a dentist before the introduction of a now compulsory vocational training scheme. Scottish Legal News
Woman solicitor described by colleagues as 'ballbreaker' awarded £150,000
A solicitor allegedly described by a manager as a ‘ballbreaker’ has been awarded more than £150,000 for the sex discrimination and unfair dismissal she suffered at work.
In a remedy judgment, employment Judge Jones, sitting in the east London hearing centre, awarded Helena Biggs £53,840 for injury to feelings and £28,581 for past lost wages. With interest and other extras included, the total awarded to Biggs was £151,811. Law Gazette