Copy article

Mail Online need quick reaction from an employment lawyer

ended 02. August 2024

A journalist at the Mail Online is writing a piece on Huw Edwards continuing to receive a salary and pension contributions after the BBC knew of the allegations against him. BBC boss Tim Davie said it would be “very difficult to claw back, nigh on impossible”, adding: “These are unfortunately the specifics of how it works.” The Mail are keen to get some reaction from an employment lawyer talking about this – does the BBC have any chance of recouping Edwards' salary or doing anything about his pension? Any thoughts, send them across.

2 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Michael Nadin
Employment Partner at DFA Law LLP
Huw Edwards will have been entitled to receive salary and pension contributions for as long as his employment continued.

Had the BBC taken action when they first found out about the allegations they could potentially have run a parallel disciplinary investigation and (depending on the outcome) dismissed him.

However, the BBC may have been asked by the police not to take this action for fear that it would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, because Huw Edward's employment continued until April 2024 (when he resigned) the BBC would have no automatic right to recoup any payments made to him up to this point.

The only exceptions would be if there was a clause in his employment contract which allowed recovery in these circumstance (which seems very unlikely) or if Huw Edwards voluntarily agrees to return the money.
Copy

Ian Jones
Director and Principal Solicitor at Spencer Shaw Solicitors
Suspension is a neutral act under the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures. If an employer decides to suspend an employee, it must continue to pay them (including pension contributions). The employer's obligation to pay the employee does not cease until they terminate employment.

It is the employer's choice whether to proceed with disciplinary action whilst a Police investigation is ongoing. The procedures and standards of proof are different for both. Employers do not need to wait until the authorities reach a decision to complete their own disciplinary proceedings but most do. This reduces the risk of unfair dismissal claims if proceedings do not lead to a conviction.

The BBC made a choice which may have been the right one at the time. Hindsight always has the advantage of coming after the event.

There is little prospect of the BBC being able to recover either the salary paid or the employee's pension (which is administered by the pension trustees, not the BBC).