Background
The National Education Union began disciplinary proceedings against member Paramjeet Singh Bhogal in November 2023, alleging conduct contrary to its Code of Professional Conduct and conduct bringing injury or discredit to the union. The union’s officers suspended him from membership pending the disciplinary proceedings.
Bhogal complained to the Certification Officer that the officers had breached the union’s rules by bringing a complaint under Appendix A paragraph 1.1(a), which he argued was outside the categories of disciplinary offence that officers could pursue. The union relied on paragraph 3.3 as authority for officers to formulate complaints and suspend members. The Certification Officer accepted the union’s interpretation and struck out Bhogal’s application as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Bhogal’s appeal and set aside the strike-out order. It did not decide which interpretation of the union’s rules was ultimately correct. Instead, it held that the rules were ambiguous and that Bhogal’s construction was at least reasonably arguable.
The Certification Officer could not summarily resolve that ambiguity using the limited materials before her. Neither the union’s 2020 rules nor a later review-group document compelled the union’s interpretation, and relevant contextual evidence about the genesis and purpose of the 2023 amendments had not been obtained. Striking out the complaint without the evidence necessary to decide the construction issue was therefore an error of law.
The EAT rejected Bhogal’s additional victimisation and discrimination arguments because they were new and fell outside the single complaint considered by the Certification Officer. His original rules complaint, however, is live again and must be addressed under the Certification Officer’s statutory powers and duties.
Key Takeaways
- A dispute about the meaning of union rules may be struck out only where the challenged interpretation is merely fanciful or the Certification Officer has all evidence necessary to resolve the issue.
- Union rules are construed as contractual constitutional documents, considering their language, structure, purpose, and relevant factual context.
- An individual union member cannot necessarily be expected to identify contextual evidence held by the union; focused enquiries by the Certification Officer may therefore be especially important.
Why It Matters
The decision limits summary dismissal of complaints where recently amended union rules are genuinely ambiguous. A Certification Officer must assess whether relevant contextual evidence is needed before concluding that a member’s interpretation has no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment does not establish that the NEU lacked authority to discipline or suspend Bhogal. It restores his complaint for further determination of what the rules actually permitted.