Underpaid whilst suspended on full pay

DMC3103

On the 19th of this month I was suspended for gross misconduct and was advised it would be on full pay. I offered my resignation with immediate effect but this was not accepted as I was advised that disciplinary proceedings had already started. I was asked to attend two investigation interviews which I failed to attend. My disciplinary hearing is on the 4th of this month and I am fully aware of the outcome. This morning I checked my pay slip to see that i had been underpaid. When I looked at the breakdown it says that wages have been deducted for unauthorised absences during the whole period of suspension. Are they allowed to do this? I had contacted my union on the day of suspension to seek advise regarding attending as this matter has been going on for the past 8 months and I no longer have the energy to fight it, they did not advise that they could withold pay at any point for not attending.

Any advice would be gratefully received.
Thanks in advance

Guest101

Ofcourse, you failed to carry out instruction and missed 2 days - presumably the deduction is 2 days wages.

TELLIT01

You would have been suspended on full pay with the expectation that you would still comply with the requirements laid down by your employer. By failing to attend you have presumably failed to do so. On that basis the company is probably entitled to deduct wages as unauthorised absence.

Undervalued

TELLIT01 wrote: »

You would have been suspended on full pay with the expectation that you would still comply with the requirements laid down by your employer. By failing to attend you have presumably failed to do so. On that basis the company is probably entitled to deduct wages as unauthorised absence.

Yes, I agree.

However the company "refusing" the OP's resignation is also something of a nonsense. Except for a very few regulated professions (and nowadays the police) an employer cannot refuse a resignation providing the employee gives the correct notice.

To be honest as any relationship seems to have broken down and the company clearly wants to be as pedantic as possible, the OP may as well string them along and collect a few extra days pay! Why not go sick on the day of the disciplinary hearing (preferably with a doctor's certificate)? Ultimately they can hold a hearing in his absence but I would very much doubt if they will do that initially.

Paid holiday continues at accrue all the time he remains an employee at a rate of roughly one day every two weeks so make sure they pay that too.

sangie595

A fit note does not excuse someone from attending a disciplinary unless it specifically states so. A disciplinary is not normal work, and therefore is not within the context of a sick note saying someone is unfit for normal work.

I am going to assume, since nothing to the contrary had been said, that the OP had done what they are accused of. So it would not be true to say that if the OP strings them along, as suggested, the employer couldn't do anything more to them. The OP still requires a reference, presumably, and references can always get worse! And what an employer might not say in writing, but might say on the phone, can get infinitely worse.

If you have a case for unfair dismissal, then go to the hearing and defend yourself. If you don't, draw a line under it and move on quietly now. There will be fallout, but it could get worse if you don't. Get it over with and try to get your life back on track.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

A fit note does not excuse someone from attending a disciplinary unless it specifically states so. A disciplinary is not normal work, and therefore is not within the context of a sick note saying someone is unfit for normal work.

Yes I am fully aware of that!

My point is that the OP's employer is clearly being pedantic / by the book so it is very unlikely they will hold a disciplinary in his absence in the first instance. They will most likely re-schedule at least once which will extend the paid suspension.

Ultimately only the OP can decide if he wants to string it along for an extra few hundred quid or draw a line. He said he had offered to resign and they "refused" so it could be argued he has the moral high ground!

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

Yes I am fully aware of that!

My point is that the OP's employer is clearly being pedantic / by the book so it is very unlikely they will hold a disciplinary in his absence in the first instance. The will most likely re-schedule at least once which will extend the paid suspension.

Ultimately only the OP can decide if he wants to string it along for an extra few hundred quid or draw a line. He said he had offered to resign and they "refused" so it could be argued he has the moral high ground!

You did not say that you were fully aware of it, and nor did you point out any potential disbenefits of this course of action that you suggested. My post therefore balanced out the position, and gave the OP others points to consider which you did not mention.

The employer has, as far as we know, only refused to accept an immediate resignation, which they are entitled to do. And I fail to see how being guilty of gross misconduct - which the OP has not said they are not, and their actions tend to suggest they are - gets the "moral high ground". Offering to resign when caught for gross misconduct is not a brownie point.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

The employer has, as far as we know, only refused to accept an immediate resignation, which they are entitled to do. And I fail to see how being guilty of gross misconduct - which the OP has not said they are not, and their actions tend to suggest they are - gets the "moral high ground". Offering to resign when caught for gross misconduct is not a brownie point.

The employer has (apparently) refused to accept an immediate resignation which would have saved them quite a bit of money in paid suspension. That was their choice.

But yes it is a "brownie point" as you put it. In effect the OP was saying "OK, it is a clean cop so I will go now if you like". However the employer refused for whatever reason and it is that refusal that has given the OP the opportunity to string it along if they so wish.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

The employer has (apparently) refused to accept an immediate resignation which would have saved them quite a bit of money in paid suspension. That was their choice.

But yes it is a "brownie point" as you put it. In effect the OP was saying "OK, it is a clean cop so I will go now if you like". However the employer refused for whatever reason and it is that refusal that has given the OP the opportunity to string it along if they so wish.

In that case we will have to differ on what moral high ground is. Committing gross misconduct has never been on my list and isn't ever going to make it. And without any evidence of what the gross misconduct is, or why the employer refused to accept an immediate resignation, I would not be so quick to judge right and wrong. There may be very good reasons for refusing to drop a disciplinary, and an employer can proceed to disciplinary even where someone has resigned. For example, and this is only one example, where alleged abuse of a vulnerable group is alleged, an employer must proceed to disciplinary before referring it to the relevant safeguarding authorities. The same is true of many regulated positions, where a disciplinary is required before a reporting procedure can be applied. Equally, someone who has resigned may still pursue a legal claim that can cost the employer many thousands of £'s. It is therefore entirely possible that the employer wishes to safeguard their own position by ensuring that they have fully investigated the matter and come to a firm conclusion based on the evidence. That would allow them then to make a counterclaim for legal costs against a frivolous claim, and since such cost applications are increasingly being granted, provides them with more security against legal claims.

Detroit

Undervalued wrote: »

The employer has (apparently) refused to accept an immediate resignation which would have saved them quite a bit of money in paid suspension. That was their choice.

But yes it is a "brownie point" as you put it. In effect the OP was saying "OK, it is a clean cop so I will go now if you like". However the employer refused for whatever reason and it is that refusal that has given the OP the opportunity to string it along if they so wish.

People resigning when believing a dismissal for GM is highly likely often do so in the mistaken belief that by resigning they avoid having a dismissal on their record.
They may have the opinion that by side stepping the dismissal, as it were, they prevent their previous employer informing prospective future employers they had been dismissed.
This is not an act deserving of being commended, as it is done in an attempt to be disingenuous. It is also not likely to achieve the desired result.

Undervalued

Detroit wrote: »

People resigning when believing a dismissal for GM is highly likely often do so in the mistaken belief that by resigning they avoid having a dismissal on their record.
They may have the opinion that by side stepping the dismissal, as it were, they prevent their previous employer informing prospective future employers they had been dismissed.

Yes. However nothing stops the employer from saying "resigned whilst under investigation for gross misconduct" in response to any reference request.

Arguably the fact they have admitted their mistake and "done the honourable thing" should count in their favour depending on how you look at it.

Apart from certain regulated professions there is no such thing as "their record". What we are discussing is the reference that might be forthcoming if the firm is asked by a prospective employer. Rightly or wrongly we don't have a log book that has to be shown when applying for a job!

Someone who was dismissed for GM or resigned in response to such an accusation is unlikely to give that company as a reference if they can possibly avoid it.

If, as Sangie has suggested, the firms real reason for refusing an immediate resignation is to cover their own back then there is no incentive for the employee to co-operate with the process unless they feel they have a realistic chance of defending the "charge".

Obviously if the employee can find any kind of lever and negotiate a settlement agreement with an agreed reference then that is another matter.