PFEW to request election cycle amendment following pension Employment Tribunal judgment

The tribunal had ruled that the PFEW “discriminated against and victimised” officers who had previously made claims against the Government after being moved onto pension schemes with reduced benefits.

Following the judgment, the PFEW said it would be taking “a proactive approach to engage, rebuild bridges, learn lessons and implement change”.

PFEW chief executive officer Mukund Krishna said: “Following the Employment Tribunal’s judgment in the Police Pension Challenge, the Federation has decided to commission an independent review that will examine the statutory basis of the organisation, its purpose, rules, funding and governance.

“We have a huge task of addressing the challenges brought by the judgment. Time is pivotal in doing this and, obviously, we will need time to implement the organisational changes based on the independent review’s recommendations.

“An extension of the election cycle will be very helpful in driving the changes to ensure we provide the best possible support to our reps and members and the organisation is fit for the future.”

The PFEW said at the time it would “not be pursuing an appeal” against the judgment, which had “made for very difficult reading”, adding it was “unreservedly sorry and would like to offer an unconditional apology for the distress caused”.

The police pension discrimination claim brought against the PFEW was led by Leigh Day Solicitors.

The original claims against the Government were for age discrimination regarding the statutory transitional arrangements, which led to older police officers remaining in the more beneficial pension schemes while younger officers were moved to a new pension and suffered a detriment.

In those claims, the Government acknowledged there had been discrimination against younger police officers on the basis of age.

Law firm Leigh Day said thousands of police officers then claimed that the PFEW discriminated against and/or victimised them by:

• Pursuing, promoting and protecting a policy which favoured the Government’s discriminatory transitional arrangements, and therefore favoured the protection of older police officers;
• Continually refusing to support and/or fund the original police pensions claims (PPC) despite the active involvement of approximately 15,000 police officers bringing claims; and
• Taking active steps to deter, obstruct and/or penalise the claimants from pursuing the original police pensions claims, in particular through divisive and adverse communications about the claim.

After reviewing the PFEW’s decisions and communications regarding the police pensions claims, the East London Employment Tribunal found that the PFEW understood from the outset that that there was a “possibility” of age discrimination and its messaging was “unfailingly supportive” of the transitional provisions.

In the written judgment, 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.”

The Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE) Police Pension Scheme came into force in April 2015. The 2015 changes meant that older members could stay in the existing, favourable pension scheme, while those born after April 1, 1967, had to transfer to a new, financially inferior scheme.

In December 2015, a legal claim was launched against the Home Office and police chiefs and commissioners on behalf of younger officers, arguing that membership of the new scheme was discriminatory on the grounds of age.

The Government conceded defeat in the legal case in August 2019, acknowledging that moving police officers onto new police pension schemes based on their age was discriminatory.

The tribunal had found in favour of the PFEW in relation to indirect age discrimination, and ruled in favour of the claimants on a number of claims of direct age discrimination and victimisation.