Cloisters counsel instructed on both sides of complex group litigation claims
Written by Cloisters
The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) is found to have subjected its members to direct age discrimination and victimisation
Approximately 10,000 serving or former police officers brought claims against the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), a statutory body whose principal function is to represent the interests of serving police officers in England and Wales. They claimed that the PFEW discriminated against and victimised members who had previously made successful claims against the Government for age discrimination after being moved onto a pension scheme with reduced benefits (known as the “police pension challenge”).
In Broadbent and Others v Police Federation of England and Wales [2023], the London East employment tribunal upheld claims of direct age discrimination and victimisation against the Police Federation, finding that the PFEW adopted, from 2012 to 2020, a policy of supporting and protecting the discriminatory transitional arrangements of the police pension scheme, and that this constituted less favourable treatment of the claimants on the basis of age, which was not justified. The tribunal also found that PFEW directly discriminated against and victimised the claimants by:
continually refusing to support and/or fund the police pension challenge despite the active involvement of approximately 15,000 of its members in those claims;
taking active steps to deter and obstruct the claimants from pursuing the police pension challenge, in particular through divisive and adverse communications about the claims.
In a detailed 141 page judgment, the tribunal found that PFEW knowingly created division and ill-feeling towards those members who instigated or joined the police pension challenge, presenting distorted or misleading communications about the challenge, its risks, merits and alleged impact on both claimants and older officers. It found that, as the police pensions challenge progressed through the courts, the focus of PFEW remained on protecting its older officers. In so doing, it treated those younger members who had joined the police pensions challenge “as its adversaries, to be outmanoeuvred". The tribunal also found that, in relation to each of the allegations against PFEW, the decisions were taken and/or approved by its successive General/National Secretaries.
This judgment determines the liability claims of the eight claimants who gave evidence in the five-week trial; the claims will return to the employment tribunal later this year to determine the position in respect of the 9,981 claims sitting behind those eight claimants, and for remedy.
The Claimants were represented by Schona Jolly KC, Anna Beale and Laurene Veale (as well as Caroline Musgrave-Cohen before she went on her recent maternity leave), instructed by Leigh Day solicitors, whilst Jason Galbraith-Marten KC and Ruaraidh Fitzpatrick acted for the Respondent PFEW, instructed by Kennedys solicitors.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.