The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) has been found to have victimised and discriminated against police officers who made claims against the government after being moved onto pension schemes with reduced benefits, according to an employment tribunal.
The case, brought against the Home Office and police chiefs and commissioners, centered around age discrimination, with younger officers arguing that they were unfairly placed on an inferior pension scheme due to their birth dates after 1st April 1967. In 2019, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of the officers and now, a subsequent tribunal has found the PFEW guilty of discrimination and victimisation.
The PFEW is the staff association for police constables, sergeants, inspectors, chief inspectors and special constables in England and Wales. Following the initial ruling in favour of younger officers, thousands of police officers claimed that the PFEW discriminated against and victimised them by actively promoting the government's plans to transition them onto the inferior pension scheme. These officers alleged that the PFEW refused to support and fund their original claims and took steps to obstruct and penalise them from pursuing their grievances.
The recent East London employment tribunal found that the PFEW recognised the possibility of age discrimination but provided a skewed and misleading narrative in support of the transition to the new pension arrangement. The judge criticised the PFEW for not considering whether there was a less discriminatory way to redesign the scheme, ensuring fairness for younger officers. The tribunal also noted that the PFEW, for the better part of eight years, actively championed the transitional provisions without raising any objections to them.
Law firm Leigh Day is representing the younger police officers and will pursue compensation on their behalf in future hearings. The tribunal's judgment has been hailed as an overwhelming win for the officers and a damning assessment of the PFEW's actions over more than a decade. The PFEW is criticised for failing in its responsibility to protect and represent its members while actively campaigning against police pension claims. The judgment provides a sense of vindication for the affected officers, who stood together to challenge what they saw as clear discrimination.
A senior associate at Leigh Day highlighted the PFEW's lack of action in challenging the government's discriminatory pension arrangements, stressing the detrimental impact on many young police officers. The judgment calls into question the conduct of the PFEW and raises concerns about its failure to address equalities issues and consult its membership on significant matters like pensions.
The employment tribunal's ruling against the Police Federation of England and Wales confirms the existence of discrimination and victimisation against officers who made pension claims. The judgment criticises the PFEW for its skewed narrative and failure to consider less discriminatory alternatives. The case highlights the need for organisations like the PFEW to fulfill their responsibility to protect and represent their members, rather than campaigning against their interests. As the affected officers seek compensation, the ruling serves as a vindication of their claims and a step towards rectifying the injustices they faced.
