Almost 10,000 cops across the country were victimised and discriminated against by the police 'union' in a row over pension arrangements, a tribunal has found.
A challenge was led by PC Lee Broadbent, who in February stepped down from his role as chairman of the Greater Manchester branch of the Police Federation - which is supposed to represent rank-and-file cops - just a year into the job as the simmering row, which began in 2015, reached boiling point.
Junior officers were said to have been threatened by older cops, who accused them of 'damaging their pensions' - after they launched a challenge to changes which would see younger members of the workforce thousands of pounds worse off in retirement.
Join our WhatsApp Top Stories and Breaking News group by clicking this link
The tribunal heard that one inspector told a younger police officer: "If anything happens to my pension because of you, I will burn your house down with your family inside."
PC Broadbent told the hearing The Police Federation had a pattern of 'treating members like mushrooms - namely, kept in the dark and fed manure.'
The tribunal found in favour of PC Broadbent and the other officers who were treated as the 'enemy within' by the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), after they launched a challenge to changes to pensions which discriminated against younger cops.
In 2019, the government accepted that following a Supreme Court ruling, its proposed 2015 changes to public service pensions discriminated against younger workers - after a challenge was brought by firefighters, judges and also police.
But a tribunal has found that before that time senior figures in the Police Federation discriminated against and victimised PC Broadbent and other police officers as they sided with the government - and refused to provide funding for the challenge.
In a 140-page published ruling, Employment Tribunal 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."
Had they been implemented, the new pension arrangements would have meant those furthest from retirement would have been thousands of pounds worse off per year after their retirement, according to the judgment.
The Federation had set up a 'technical working group' to assess the changes but none of its members including the general secretary at the time Ian Rennie were in the younger cohort, the tribunal found.
Judge Massarella said: "It is striking, however, that at no point before May 2020 did the Respondent, the overwhelming majority of whose leadership appears to have belonged to the 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."
Neither Mr Rennie nor his successors, who argued the proposed changes benefitted a majority of police officers, 'took steps to establish whether that was factually accurate', said the judge, who noted a 'a top-down approach to decision-making' at the Federation. The ruling found there had been 'no consultation of the membership at large'.
Judge Massarella said: "The tribunal was struck by the extent to which the general/national secretaries were able to act freely, supported and enabled by a loyal executive team but apparently unencumbered by scrutiny or accountability.
"There was, it appears to us, a democratic deficit within the organisation. Mr Broadbent observed, not unfairly in our view '(the respondent) had a pattern of treating members like mushrooms, namely kept in the dark and fed manure'."
The tribunal heard that some claimants were 'exposed to anger and hostility, in particular from some older officers who were concerned about the effect of a successful legal challenge on their pensions'.
PC Broadbent, the tribunal heard, recalled one incident when he was approached by older cops in a parade room 'accusing him of damaging their pensions'.
The tribunal heard an inspector told a Met Police officer, James Watling: "If anything happens to my pension because of you, I will burn your house down with your family inside."
The tribunal found that the Federation knew its tactics 'fostered, division and ill-feeling towards those officers who chose to join' the legal challenge and had 'consistently presented a distorted and/or misleading and/or inaccurate assessment of the claimant’s legal claims'.
According to the judgment, the Fed had realised that failing to challenge the plans 'which later turned out to be unlawful would be a reputational disaster', adding that: "As that disaster approached, instead of changing position, the respondent redoubled its efforts to sell its position to its members and to maintain its oppositional stance."
Judge Massarella went on: "In the tribunal's view, it displayed extraordinary intransigence, as its position became ever more illogical: defending transitional provisions which benefited ever fewer members, while ignoring their discriminatory impact on the majority."
Another hearing will assess damages due to the officers who joined the challenge, which is thought could be in the millions of pounds.
After the judgment, PC Broadbent 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 (the Police Federation'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, of law firm Leigh Day which led the challenge for police, firefighters and judges, 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."
A statement from the Federation said: "PFEW takes the detail of the judgment very seriously and will now reflect on the detail, affording it the necessary and thorough review that it deserves. We have subsequently held meetings with the National Board and National Council to engage in this process. PFEW will comment and respond in due course, after the full detail and ramifications of the judgment have been considered."
The Greater Manchester branch of the Federation declined to comment.
Read more of today's top stories here
READ NEXT:
