I am not advocating the non payment of wages to an employee following time off after an accident, but I would like clarification on this if anybody can help. If an employee is found to be solely responsible for having an accident, and I mean after a full investigation, is the company liable to pay the employee wages for the period of time taken off? At present when an employee has an accident at work it is policy to pay full wages and shift premium. The aim of this question is to clarify this under law. Thanks Dave

I think this is an HR/ Contract law question, it all depends on what the employee has in his or her terms and conditions when they started with the company, usually under the section of "deductions" Though from a health and safety point of view, even if the employee is solely responsible for their accident and subsequent time off, the company may still be liable in the event of a civil claim. Paying employees for time off, regardless of who or what caused the accident, can mitigate the chance of a claim coming in in the first place, as the employee does not feel "hard done by" and is therefor less likely to pick up the phone and call in the ambulance chasers, and in the event of a claim, there cannot be any "lost earnings" if they were paid in full.

For the first 28 weeks the employer is liable to make Statutory Sick Pay - this is a legally defined minimum payment which can be augmented according to any sick-pay scheme established by the employer. It is only the pain & suffering part of an accident claim where employee contribution would be considered. And in the absence of a sick-pay scheme loss of earnings between SSP and normal take home would become part of a claim.

I think the original question is confusing two issues - the contractual obligation to provide sick pay for someone off sick, for whatever reason, and the issue of the accident being the injured party's fault, which is a possible disciplinary matter. These are two separate issues best kept separate.