The publicised Employment Tribunal case involving professional footballer Benjamin Mendy concerned (alongside some other questions) whether he should have been paid during a period when he was unable to work because of a suspension imposed by the Football Association. The suspension was a safeguarding measure pending the outcome of a related criminal case.
When considering this question, the Employment Tribunal referred to a previously decided case of the Court of Appeal which concerned a doctor who was suspended from work by the General Medical Council. Similarly, the suspension was in place pending the outcome of a regulatory process; there was also a criminal investigation at the time.
In both cases the individual was entitled to be paid their salary for the period, because:
- their employers had an implied (automatic) duty to pay their wages if they were ready, willing and able to work in accordance with their employment contract;
- neither of their employment contracts stated that their salary would not be paid in the circumstances;
- the restriction on their ability to work was put in place by a third party; and
- the restriction was an interim precautionary measure pending the outcome of a process (criminal / fitness to practice cases) in relation to which they were entitled to be treated as innocent unless or until proven guilty.
Their inability to work was treated as an unavoidable impediment and did not negate their employer’s implied duty to pay their wages during the period.
Similarly, in the case of Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd, before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the employer refused to allow Ms Miles to return to work after a period of long-term sick leave until she had been examined by its own doctor, which took a further six weeks. Ms Miles had been ready and willing to work but was not able to do so because of the employer’s requirement. She was, therefore, entitled to be paid for the period.
This blog was written by Ben Lindsay, Solicitor at didlaw.
