ABSTRACT
The right to suspension with pay only applies to employees who are fit to work (s 64): those who are ill, including those who are ill as a result of exposure to one of the toxic substances covered by the Regulations listed in the Schedule to the Act, are entitled to claim sick pay as laid down in the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, as subsequently amended. This anomaly was highlighted in Stallite Batteries Co Ltd v Appleton and Hopkinson (1988).14 In this unreported case, the EAT had to consider the case of two men who, working for a lead-acid battery manufacturer, suffered over-exposure to lead such as to require them to be treated in hospital. The EAT found that they were nevertheless entitled only to state sickness benefit during their time off work. In the case of Mr Appleton he had, after a few weeks of working with the company actually fallen into a skip containing lead paste; after this his blood-lead level was very high and his doctor did not consider him fit for work for many months; by which time he had been dismissed by his employer. Mr Hopkinson did not suffer an accident, but he received his P45, indicating his dismissal, after a period of absence due to exposure to lead. The EAT confirmed that the men being unfit for work were unable to claim remuneration under s 19. However the EAT, pointing out that the general law of unfair dismissal, under the provision which is now s 108(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the normal period of continuous employment needed to claim for unfair dismissal is reduced to one month, so that both men appeared to be eligible for compensation for unfair dismissal.
