Police Federation discriminated against officers in pension claim

The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) victimised and discriminated against officers who made claims against the government after being moved onto pension schemes with reduced benefits, an employment tribunal has found.

In a case brought against the Home Office and police chiefs and commissioners, younger officers argued that being moved onto a new, financially inferior scheme because they were born after 1 April 1967 was discriminatory on the grounds of age. In 2019, an employment tribunal ruled in their favour.

Following the ruling, thousands of police officers then claimed that the PFEW, the staff association for police constables, sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors and special constables, discriminated against and victimised them by promoting the government’s plans to move them onto the inferior scheme.

They also claimed that the PFEW continually refused to support and fund the original claims, and took active steps to deter, obstruct and/or penalise the claimants from pursuing them, in particular through divisive and adverse communications.

This week, the East London employment tribunal found that the PFEW recognised that there was a possibility of age discrimination, but provided a skewed and misleading narrative that had an overriding objective of protecting the plan to transition them onto the new pension arrangement.

Consideration was not given to whether there was any less discriminatory way of redesigning the scheme so it was fairer for younger officers, the judge said.

Employment Judge Massarella said: “In our view the potential for age discrimination was so obvious that it cried out for a cogent explanation of what the justification for it might be.”

“At no point before May 2020 did the respondent, the overwhelming majority of whose leadership appears to have belonged to the group protected by the transitional provisions, raise any objection in principle to the transitional provisions. On the contrary, it actively championed them for the best part of eight years.”

Law firm Leigh Day is pursuing compensation for younger police officers, which will be discussed at a later hearing.

Lee Broadbent, a constable for Greater Manchester Police, said: “Collectively thousands of us stood together when called upon to challenge what was clear discrimination, and where other colleagues charged with protecting our legal interests should feel a deep sense of shame, we are proud.

“Reading the articulate way in which Employment Judge Massarella dismantles PFEW’s ‘justifications’ and succinctly lays out the utter contempt the organisation held against its members, described as the ‘enemy from within’ has floored me.

“It is of course what many of us felt at the time, and no doubt many, including myself, are still being made to feel, but this judgment gives a sense of vindication.”

Mandy Bhattal, a senior associate at Leigh Day, said:  “This is an overwhelming win for our clients and a damning assessment of the actions of the PFEW. The judgment is highly critical of the conduct of the PFEW, spanning a period of over a decade, from when the transitional arrangements were first mooted.

“The PFEW has a responsibility to challenge the government but instead, not only did it ignore its responsibility to protect and represent members, it actively campaigned against police pensions claims to the detriment of many young police officers.”

PFEW said in a statement: “The judgment makes for very difficult reading for the organisation. However, we would like to assure the membership that PFEW’s National Board and National Council take the employment tribunal’s comments and judgment very seriously. We will reflect on it, affording it the necessary and thorough review that it deserves. Earlier today, the National Board and National Council met to begin that process.

“We will comment on and respond to the judgment fully in due course.”

HR opportunities in the public sector on Personnel Today

Browse more HR opportunities in the public sector