Employer has to Pay Detained Employee Wages during Illness

An employer had to continue wage payment to a detained employee during the latter’s illness, because the primary reason for not being able to work was not the detention, but the illness.
In July 2022, a production employee of a metalworking company fell ill. He suffered from serious mental complaints. After having attacked his wife at home in December 2022, he had been remanded in custody. On January 20, 2023, the employer announced that the continued payment of the wages would be discontinued as of January 1, 2023.
In February 2023, the pre-trial detention was suspended and the employee was admitted to the psychiatric department of a penitentiary for clinical treatment. In November 2023, the Criminal Chamber of the Court discharged the employee from all legal proceedings, because he had been fully insane at the time of the proven criminal offense. As a measure he was imposed availability. One of the conditions of the availability was continuation of the treatment in a healthcare institution. In December 2023, the employee was allowed to go back home, where he received day treatment.
In February 2024, in summary proceedings, the employee claimed wage payment as of January 1, 2023. He stated that the fact that he was unable to work was at the expense of the employer, because the primary reason for being unable to work was that the employee was fully incapacitated for work due to illness.
The Sub-district Court recalled the two legal provisions, regulating whether an employee who does not perform work is still entitled to wages.
According to the first provision, an employer shall pay wages, unless the reason for not working should reasonably be borne by the employee. According to the Sub-district Court , the detention was a reason that should be borne by the employee.
According to the second provision, an employee is entitled to wages if he does not work due to illness.
Since the employee was both detained and ill during the period for which payment of wages was claimed, the Sub-district Court had to decide which provision should prevail over the other one. According to the Sub-district Court, this was the provision granting the right to wages due to illness, since the correct deduction from the Criminal Court’s judgment and the admission to a psychiatric clinic was that the pre-trial detention and the admission to the penitentiary psychiatric department had likely resulted from illness. According to the Sub-district Court , this made the disease the primary cause of the inability to work. For this reason, the employer had to pay the employee the salary, as of 1 January 2023.

From the legislative history of Employment Law, obliging an employer in 1996 to continue paying the employee's wages during illness, instead of the employee receiving a Sickness Benefit, the conclusion may be that no wage is to be paid if the primary cause of the inability to work differs from illness. The example given at the time was, that an employee became ill during his detention. Until 1996, the employee was not entitled to a Sickness Benefit in such a case.
In the above case, the employee was not only ill first and then detained, but whose reason for the detention was also related to the illness. In particular the latter argument implies that the primary reason for the labour incapacity was the illness; not the detention.