Paramjeet Singh Bhogal v National Education Union

A Certification Officer may strike out a complaint about the meaning of union rules only where the wording and relevant context leave no reasonably arguable competing construction, or the Officer has the evidence needed to resolve the question summarily. Where a recent rule change creates ambiguity and relevant background is missing, the complaint cannot be treated as having no reasonable prospect merely because the Officer favours one interpretation.

Union rules are construed objectively as a contractual constitution, by reference to their language and relevant background, including the genesis and aim of amendments. A member cannot be expected to identify contextual facts outside their knowledge, so the Certification Officer’s inquiries are important.

The appellant was a member of the National Education Union. After National Officers initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under the union’s rules, he complained to the Certification Officer that the rules did not authorise them to bring complaints under the Code of Professional Conduct provision or to suspend him on that basis. The Certification Officer interpreted the rules as permitting the officers’ actions and struck out the complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed. The issue was whether the Certification Officer could summarily strike out the complaint despite the disputed interpretation of the rules and the absence of further material about the background to a recent rule change.

1. Appeal and disposal. The appeal was allowed and the Certification Officer’s strike-out order was set aside. The original application remained live for determination under the statutory powers and duties. The appeal did not decide which interpretation of the union rules was correct.
2. When summary strike-out is available. Under section 256 ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a construction dispute may be determined summarily where the rules are unambiguous or the available context leaves only one reasonably arguable meaning, and where the Certification Officer has the evidence needed to resolve the issue. The approach should be akin to that described in Embery v Fire Brigades Union [2023] EAT 134. Here, the phrase “these proceedings” in paragraph 3.3 was ambiguous, and the appellant’s construction was reasonably arguable. The union’s construction also had force: paragraph 3.1(b) made the paragraph 3.3(a) procedure mandatory for specified complaints, while paragraph 3.3 gave officers a suspension power. But paragraph 3.3(a) arguably applied only to a subcategory of complaints requiring further investigation, leaving that suspension power with a function under the appellant’s interpretation. Neither the 2020 rules nor the review group document resolved the ambiguity.
3. Context and inquiries. Union rules are a contract and a constitution. Their meaning is assessed objectively by reference to the wording and the background available to the members, including the genesis and aim of a rule change, but excluding pre-contractual negotiations. The Certification Officer had only limited contextual material. The recent amendment made it important to understand the issues it was intended to address. An individual member cannot be expected to identify contextual facts of which they have no knowledge. Unlike the parties in Khatri v Cooperative Central Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank [2010] EWCA Civ 397, a union member may lack access to that background. Given the Certification Officer’s limited case-management powers, focused inquiries under section 108B(2)(a) were especially important, although they might have been enough to resolve the issue without a hearing.
4. Other grounds. The appellant’s victimisation matters did not concern the issue before the Certification Officer and were dismissed insofar as they were advanced as grounds of appeal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2026] EAT 124 ): allowed the appeal and set aside the Certification Officer’s strike-out order.
• Certification Officer (18 June 2024): struck out the appellant’s complaint as having no reasonable prospects of success.