Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Strike Out of Union Rule Interpretation Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has set aside a decision to strike out a member's complaint regarding the interpretation of trade union rules.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that a Certification Officer erred in law by striking out a union member's complaint without sufficient evidence. The case, Bhogal v National Education Union [2026] EAT 124, centres on a dispute regarding the interpretation of disciplinary rules within the union's rulebook.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant, Mr Paramjeet Singh Bhogal, challenged the National Education Union's (NEU) disciplinary proceedings against him. He argued that the union's officers lacked the authority under the rules to pursue complaints or suspend members in relation to specific disciplinary offences, including those under paragraphs 1.1(a) and (g) of the union's rulebook.
The Certification Officer had previously struck out the application, determining that the appellant's interpretation of the rules had no reasonable prospects of success. The Certification Officer concluded that the union's officers maintained the power to suspend members under paragraph 3.3, regardless of the specific charges.
EAT Findings
Her Honour Judge Joffe, presiding over the appeal, found that the Certification Officer's decision to strike out the claim was premature. The court highlighted that the union's rules contained genuine ambiguity. Specifically, it was unclear whether the term "these proceedings" in paragraph 3.3 was intended to encompass all disciplinary complaints or was restricted by the newer provisions introduced in 2023.
The judgment emphasised that the Certification Officer did not have the necessary evidence to resolve these interpretive issues. The court noted that because trade union members often lack access to the contextual background and drafting history of such rules, the Certification Officer must be cautious when exercising summary powers.
The EAT concluded that the Certification Officer erred in law by proceeding to a summary determination without fully considering whether the appellant's construction of the rules was reasonably arguable. Consequently, the strike out order has been set aside, and the original application remains live.
Read the entire judgment here: Bhogal v National Education Union [2026] EAT 124
