Following the final Prime Minister’s Questions just days before the summer break for MPs, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer cracked the whip and suspended four Labour MPs over breaches of party discipline.
Such moves are not unusual in political parties. MPs (or MSPs for that matter) who lose the party whip are excluded from all party activities and might not be able to run for election under the party banner again.
The situation highlights just how far-removed MPs are from the sphere of employment law. MPs have no statutory job description or contract of employment, they are not employed by the House of Commons and there are no managers to raise complaints to. MPs are subject to a Parliamentary Code of Conduct but are not subject to some crucial employment laws as they are not employees; rather, they are elected office holders.
In a traditional employment relationship, suspension is only appropriate in limited circumstances owing to the significant effect on working relationships, morale, and trust between employer and employee. An employer might choose to suspend an employee pending investigation of a grievance or disciplinary matter and even in those circumstances suspension should not be used as a punishment.
Suspension pending investigation can be crucial in situations where there is a risk that an investigation could be prejudiced by the employee remaining at work, for example by evidence being hidden or destroyed, or witnesses being coerced or discouraged from co-operating. There might be a commercial or reputational risk in keeping an employee on the premises carrying out company business, especially where the employee is client-facing or has access to key IT and communications systems. Even so, it is critical that employers carry out a risk assessment before they make a decision to suspend, as suspension can entitle an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
Whether a decision to suspend is reasonable depends on the individual circumstances and whether both of the following apply:
- you took steps that led you to believe suspension was a reasonable decision
- other employers in a similar industry, with the same information as you, would see that a decision to suspend was reasonable.
Unlike in the political world, employers cannot suspend staff punitively, as this is well outside what the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure would consider fair and reasonable. It’s also worth remembering that suspensions can result in low morale in the workplace which in turn can lead to reduced productivity, poor communication, and higher staff turnover. It affects team cohesion, increases absenteeism, and can damage the overall work environment, ultimately impacting business performance.
In all circumstances, employers should fully explore the alternatives to suspension. These might be:
- changing the person’s shifts
- redeploying the employee into a different department or work location
- permitting the employee to work from home
- restricting or changing duties if the employee’s duties are relevant to the conduct being investigated
- limiting contact with clients – for example if you are investigating a serious complaint from a client
- removing access to relevant pieces of software and data.
As far as possible, employers should maintain confidentiality in relation to any action taken against an employee as part of an investigation or a suspension. A breach of confidentiality often indicates a breakdown of trust in the relationship which leaves employers vulnerable to legal action.
If in doubt, it is helpful to have clear policies in place covering the grievance and disciplinary processes and assess the risks of suspending compared with not suspending. Having a documented risk assessment which sets this all out is recommended.
Our employment law experts provide comprehensive support in drafting compliant workplace policies, guiding disciplinary procedures and offering legal representation when it matters most. For Employment advice for your business contact the team on 03330 430350.
