In the case of police, by the taxpayer, as per administrative law. But the employment aspects of administrative law don’t pertain to private companies.
The police work for the public, under administrative law regulated by city councilmen or such. An accused cop is taken off the street as per administrative law, until things are sorted out under criminal/civil law. They still get pay and benefits.
But private companies are not bound by administrative law. I can’t think of any private companies on land–banks, retail, factories-- that would keep an employee employed after a company investigation found them guilty of a workplace sex crime.
If a non-union maritime company’s internal investigation finds a mariner a threat to the rest of the crew they can fire them. No administrative law involved. If the guy who is fired thinks that is unjust he can sue the company in civil court for wrongful discharge. The company knows this. They have to be careful to not be sued twice: by the person making the accusation, and by the accused. So companies are usually pretty careful about having lawful cause to fire. But they will do it, if the proof exists.
I’m no expert on union-companies. But IMO the main thing would be: What does the contract say about union-members accused of sex crimes aboard ship? Does the contract say the accused must be kept employed until a legal trial? If so, the matter is settled. But if the contract doesn’t say that, then it seems to me that the company is free to act just as any non-union company would: investigate, and if need be terminate. And no pay.
If the contract didn’t protect the accused, and they were fired, the accused could, I suppose, just sign-on with another union company. Unless that company heard of their reputation and refused to hire them. Once again: Is there a contingency mentioned in the contract for the refusal of union members accused of sex crimes? I don’t know. Depends on the union, I guess.
But if no such protection existed, then the best world for an accused union member might be to have their pay supplied by the union until the matter is settled. In other words, all union members would need to kick in something. The precedent here is the union strike fund, which exists to protect all union members’ pay (a small part of it) in case of a strike.
The union, in turn, could increase whatever assessment they charge for the administration of pension/benefits to make up for the financial loss.