Skip to content

It’s possible that we may have employment law wrong you know

A Labour MP unfairly sacked a senior adviser and ex-girlfriend after she called him a “first class idiot” in an email with Sir Keir Starmer copied in, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Khalid Mahmood fired Elaina Cohen, his long term aide, after she sent him a series of messages accusing him of being “bullying”, “spiteful” and an “insecure crooked womaniser.”

The former shadow minister – an MP for more than 20 years – dismissed Ms Cohen, who he had previously dated for several years, for disrespecting and trying to intimidate him.

But the tribunal ruled that by overseeing the disciplinary process himself and deciding to fire her, the 61-year-old had treated her unfairly.

Jeez, if you can’t fire your ex bonk…..

Rather more seriously, it seems it’s the process that matters, not reality. Which is absurd. So that’s another area of life ready for 90% cuts come the day then, eh?

13 thoughts on “It’s possible that we may have employment law wrong you know”

  1. Refreshingly non sectarian in their lobe lives at least.

    He looks like a creep. That should be sufficient evidence enough on its own in a tribunal.

  2. Odd that the Brown Skin Pass didn’t work this time. It obviously usually does, hence why he behaved in the way he did. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance of employment law (which should include the MPs who create the stuff, but as most of them have dog turds for brains I wouldn’t be overly confident in that) would realise you can’t treat employees like that and get away with it, so only someone who was pretty confident in their own invulnerability would behave with such disregard for the law.

  3. The Meissen Bison

    Jim – à propos of MP’s creating employment law, what fun to witness Jacob Rees-Mogg’s failing attempts to get civil servants to turn up for work. Simpler employment laws would him to fire the intransigent hoards of scrimshankers and send the bulk of HR “professionals” packing.

  4. Seems to me, she had a right to say what she wanted, and he had a right to sack her.

    Hmmm!!! That attitude seems a bit old-fashioned. Must be all my white hair.

  5. TMB,
    Nope. Ministers can’t minister without the cooperation of the CS. Such cooperation would be withheld if you fired a bunch of their chums. Ministers would just be sitting in their office alone and spud like firing off memos that would be laughed at and then binned. Hanging them for sedition might work though…

  6. As to TW’s serious point, what is really the problem with a requirement to justify a dismissal rather than exercise a pseudo-feudal right to fire at will? The law seeks to create a more balanced relationship between employer and employee, which seems to me to matter even more if it’s a matter of revenge against a former squeeze.

    It’s going to be a hollow victory, however. The reality noted by TW means that she’ll get little in the way of cash, not much more than a token to reflect the failure of process.

  7. “scrimshankers”: a beautiful word I’ve not seen in years. Bring back “swinging the lead” too.

  8. The law seeks to create a more balanced relationship between employer and employee,
    Oh fuck off. Totally naive. The purpose of law is to keep the people with the power continuing to have power. No other purpose. So the ‘balance’ you’re talking about is just the current median point of the relative powers of employers v politicians, bureaucrats & lobby groups. Maybe a bit of judicial politicing thrown in. (One of the main purposes of law is to keep the justice system justicing.) There’s certainly no moral or ethical ‘balance point’. This is a conflict of interests matter.

  9. “by overseeing the disciplinary process himself” he fell foul of the principle of nemo judex in sua causa. I expect that he could have fired her on other grounds without trouble, but he couldn’t accuse her of wrongdoing and then also pass judgement.

  10. Yeah Charles, but then it’d be sex discrimination and anti semitism. She was determined to have her pound of flesh some way.

    BiS has been reading Foucault again. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *