One rule for one...?

I am sometimes asked about the relevance of law to everyday life and to real people. Any review of media reports over the last week or two would answer that question and as an employment lawyer, my daily case work touches the lives of my clients through their jobs, how they are treated at work and whether they even have a job.

The most obvious current case relates to our representatives in Parliament, Honourable and Right Honourable MPs. I could spend pages analysing the "unfortunate accounting errors", but I approach this issue from the perspective of an ordinary worker. Some MPs seem to have claimed mortgage interest, remember tax payers money, in respect of loans which were no longer outstanding at the time. I imagine the situation of an employee claiming travelling expenses from their employer for journeys made several years ago, but which are no longer being made. In such a case I have little doubt that the result would be a charge of gross misconduct and dismissal. I would not rule out a criminal investigation which would frequently lead to a prison sentence if the employee was found guilty of stealing off their employer.

An employee wishing to challenge a dismissal relies upon the law of unfair dismissal, derived from an Act of Parliament passed by our MPs. It is interesting that MPs devise the law but don't seem to be subject to the same regime of discipline and dismissal. I know that the Metropolitan Police are investigating some expense claims, but in reality I doubt that any criminal charge will arise or stand up in Court. No MP will be dismissed for gross misconduct and need to rely upon the law of unfair dismissal, instead the chance of "dismissal" will only arise at the ballot box. Still, I am struck by the sense of irony about how MPs are dealt with when they make the law, one rule for one and one for another, you might say.

Stephen J. Pinder

Partner & Head of Employment Law Unit

EAD Solicitors LLP