Dawn Robertson: Coalition politics may be reason for talk of a 'bonfire'

They were referring to the announcement by ministers at Westminster of a consultation document on, among other things, cutting compensation payments for discrimination, reducing the 90-day timescale for firms to consult over job losses, and changing the transfer of undertakings protection of employment regulations (TUPE), which protects the pay and conditions of workers transferred from the public to the private sectors.

But "The Brothers" - as I believe trade union barons used to be called - can rest easy, just as Britain's bosses should not get over-excited about the prospect of more employer-friendly workplace legislation. The truth is that the government has little or no power to enact at least some of the legislation it is said to be considering without falling foul of the very European employment directives to which it has signed up.

Enactment of legislation at Westminster relating to, for example, TUPE or indeed working time, will almost certainly be in contravention of the European legislation we are bound by and as such is likely to see any aggrieved employee (probably with trade union backing) "hot foot it" to the European Court of Justice.

A hint that the government is well aware of this fact can be found in the crucial statement contained in its announcement that "legislation will not necessarily be the route to implement any change if there is a case for reform".

So why is the government devoting valuable time to the amendment of legislation which it has little or no real power to bring about?

One possible reason is that not only was employment law reform part of the Conservative Party manifesto prior to last year's General Election but it is something that the Liberal Democrats seem comfortable going along with. Perhaps such a fusion helps put a much needed plaster on what is appearing to be an increasingly fractious coalition?

Whatever the motive - political or otherwise - more enlightened employers should feel relieved that change is unlikely.

Yes, current legislation is certainly employee-friendly - too employee-friendly some bosses will no doubt argue - but the various European directives have provided a much-needed safety net which has largely outlawed many instances of unfair dismissal which, let's be honest, affected good as well as bad workers.

This has not had any noticeable adverse effect on production either - in fact it may even have improved output by helping to make offices, shops and (what used to be called) factories more amenable environments in which to work.

Under current legislation, all employees with more than 12 months' uninterrupted service with one organisation can be summarily dismissed only for an act of gross misconduct (e.g. physical or sexual assault, theft, etc).After that qualifying period, any member of staff with problems such as time keeping or lack of concentration is entitled to a period of monitoring before more drastic disciplinary action is taken.

However, even under current rules, it is still possible to sack a "no hoper" (without the individual having any grounds for compensation) as long as an employer adheres to the proper procedure; is that not a small price to pay for the added protection given to the vast majority of productive workers and, by implication, a happier workplace?

More importantly, in my view, smaller employers should be given greater assistance to comply with the increasing complicated employment law landscape.

Finally, including employment law in the increased powers being sought by Alex Salmond would make absolutely no difference to the status quo; Holyrood, like Westminster, will still be subservient to European employment directives, unless of course an independent Scotland was not part of the EU. Unthinkable, I'm sure!

• Dawn Robertson is an employment solicitor and a partner in Murray Beith Murray, Edinburgh