Police officers, that is the rank and file, do not have contracts of employment as they hold ‘office’. Employees as I understand it, must have contracts of employment to protect both parties. Recent proposed changes to the Police Pension Scheme and the intention of government to repeal Section 2 of their Pension Regulations is causing great concern amongst those who are told that, as they do have contracts and are not employees, can be coerced in to joining a pension scheme which will cost them more, for longer whilst paying less benefit.
Is this legal: can the office of Constable be used to unilaterally change their terms? Could the financial penalties they face be seen as slavery as per Art 4, ECHR? Lord Newby’s comment in the House of Lords regarding the need for consent – with no such consent, can a new scheme be put in place which seriously disadvantages the officers affected? Is the government’s policy of any officer not aged over 40 (or within 10yrs of retiral age) legal or discriminatory.
They have been told to like it or leave the new proposed scheme and therefore, face disadvantage in building up their pot. They have been told by the Scottish Police Federation that the government can impose any age they wish to discriminate who will go on to the new scheme.
I will speak with the Gen Sec. of the Scottish Police Federation Mon 22 April 2013 and so any comment, ideas or cases which will assist in identifying if a challenge can be made would be greatly appreciated.