Last Pay Check
NACCAS_VA
9 Posts
CEO, in accordance with contract, gives 60-day notice. Board accepts CEO's resignation, but tells him he doesn't have to come into the office any more.
As allowed by the contract, CEO has accumulated 60 days of leave. Can the accumulated leave be used to cover the 60 days CEO doesn't have to come into the office? OR, does the organization have to pay CEO salary for 60 days plus salary-equivalent for the 60 days accumulated leave?
The answer is not found in the contract. I think the accumulated leave can be used to cover the 60 days the CEO is still employed but doesn't have to come into the office.
As allowed by the contract, CEO has accumulated 60 days of leave. Can the accumulated leave be used to cover the 60 days CEO doesn't have to come into the office? OR, does the organization have to pay CEO salary for 60 days plus salary-equivalent for the 60 days accumulated leave?
The answer is not found in the contract. I think the accumulated leave can be used to cover the 60 days the CEO is still employed but doesn't have to come into the office.
Comments
However, how does the contract specifically address the 60-day period the CEO gave notice for? The contract would have to specifically address compensation for this period. Should a regular employee give two-weeks notice and you decide that you don't want them working for the two weeks (for whatever reason) you aren't compelled to either keep them on site or pay them for those two weeks. The same applies here - if the contract does not have a stipulation for compensation for this period, then it would appear that he does not have to be paid.
Then again, if it does, you owe him 120 days pay.
In your case, since he gave the proper notice required and you, as the employer, elected not to have him on premises, I would pay him out his notice and also give him his accumulated leave.
The contract must specifically address this issue.
Unfortunately, I say this from personal experience. A few years ago we lost a protracted battle with an employee because we did not specifically outline under what conditions the time off would be paid/not paid. And as we did not the court determined it was akin to deferred compensation and that a "reasonable person" would consider it part of their compensation.
I don't understand what the question is?
E Wart