Employees on remand are not necessarily entitled to their wages.

According to an article drafted by Manches LLP Solicitors, and appearing on the Reason Global website, an employee who is remanded in custody pending criminal proceedings may not be entitled to claim his contractual wages for that period.

In Burns v Santander UK plc the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) dismissed a claim by Mr Burns for unlawful deduction from wages. Mr Burns, a branch manager at Santander, was arrested and charged with 13 criminal offences, including physical assault on a prostitute. He was subsequently remanded in custody for six months pending trial, during which time he was not paid his wages. He was convicted of common assault and assault with intent to commit a sexual assault, but acquitted of all other charges. His sentence was non-custodial but incorporated the period of custody he had served on remand.

Mr Burns argued that he was entitled to be paid during the period he spent in custody. He relied on the established principle that an employee who is ready and willing to perform his contract but is unable to do so as a result of an unavoidable impediment, such as sickness, may still be able to claim his wages.

On appeal, the EAT held that Mr Burns’ remand in custody was not an unavoidable impediment. Although Mr Burns could not avoid custody, it was his own voluntary actions that led to the situation. His conduct was such that he should be deprived of his freedom and therefore his right to attend work. As such, he was not entitled to his contractual pay.

This decision has provided an alternative, economically efficient solution for employers dealing with the difficult question of how to deal with an employee on remand. In addition to dismissal or frustration for breach, it is now possible to maintain employment without paying for time spent in remand.