Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

995 replies

nauticant · 19/01/2024 12:59

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERCC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There was live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
R or ERCC: the Respondent, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis

OP posts:
Thread gallery
42
Boiledbeetle · 19/01/2024 16:01

He's not impressed with their behaviour I think from the sounds of his question

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 16:01

He doesn't sound happy with how ERCC handled things in respect to supporting RA

GCITC · 19/01/2024 16:01

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 16:00

Is this the tribunal chair talking now?

Yes, and he's really going for it!

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 16:00

Is this the tribunal chair talking now?

GCITC · 19/01/2024 15:54

pickledandpuzzled · 19/01/2024 15:50

Re the wrong name being used, are they accidentally using the birth name of a non binary person who no longer uses it?

No, they are using AB's current name/initials. (Which is what is written on all the documents, so it's very easy to slip up)

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:54

So to be clear, it doesn't matter if the service user is triggered by the centre lying and obfuscating about sex but it does matter if an employee breaches safeguarding because not to do so will be 'triggering'.

Ye gods.

Sisterpita · 19/01/2024 15:53

@pronounsbundlebundleAm I allowed to say that I don't want to be involved in something to do with my job because I find it upsetting? Surely revealing your sex to a service user counts as doing your job in this context?

I have known this happen, not taking a case or piece of work, where it is fairly easy to reallocate and there is a very good reason because it would be triggering.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 19/01/2024 15:50

I'm really sorry you had that experience @Hedgehogdetective

pickledandpuzzled · 19/01/2024 15:50

Re the wrong name being used, are they accidentally using the birth name of a non binary person who no longer uses it?

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:50

can an employee just say 'I find discussing this upsetting' where that thing is integral to them doing their job? And the employer unquestioningly going along with that even if the reasons why thing needs discussing are to do with safeguarding?

That's a safeguarding red flag.

Why does AB's wishes override the service users safeguarding?

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:49

Yes I imagine someone with more experience than MR would know to be too busy to handle this

Signalbox · 19/01/2024 15:49

Brefugee · 19/01/2024 15:32

I am NOT saying this is what i think. I am wondering if it's a defence tactic

Probably. I think personally I would have backed off much sooner than RA did. But then I'm not great at dealing with work conflict so tend to withdraw rather than try and resolve an issue (which brings it's own issues).

LarkLane · 19/01/2024 15:49

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:46

So MR wasn't first choice to run the disciplinary. I wonder why the first choice didn't want to do it?

Another person who didn't want a conversation probably. RA seems to have been the only person able to communicate in that place.

GCITC · 19/01/2024 15:48

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:46

So MR wasn't first choice to run the disciplinary. I wonder why the first choice didn't want to do it?

Apparently they were too busy.

BoreOfWhabylon · 19/01/2024 15:46

PMK

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:46

So MR wasn't first choice to run the disciplinary. I wonder why the first choice didn't want to do it?

LarkLane · 19/01/2024 15:45

@Hedgehogdetective that's such an awful experience for you to have gone through, I'm so very sorry. I've been reading every link and bit of info on MW.
I hope that you are in better times now. Flowers

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:45

RedToothBrush · 19/01/2024 15:39

Are DBS checks 'humiliating'?

You literally need to be asked about your previous names as part of safeguarding protocols.

Anyone who refuses to discuss this, is a walking red flag.

Show quote history

Very, very good point.

How can AB possibly be suitable as a counsellor in this situation.

RedToothBrush · 19/01/2024 15:41

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:35

Am I allowed to say that I don't want to be involved in something to do with my job because I find it upsetting? Surely revealing your sex to a service user counts as doing your job in this context?

Is it only me that wonders how AB could counsel a rape victim who might mention biological sex?

If they find discussion of their name humiliating and upsetting how can they function in a job? Surely it's humiliating and upsetting for service users to have their needs (after having been raped) put so far below the needs of someone who's changed their name and finds mention of their previous name triggering, somehow.

It's relevant to this just in particular but talking about previous names is appropriate to ANY job which might require a DBS.

Mmmnotsure · 19/01/2024 15:40

NC: reads response from RA.
'This seems a minefield to me. Interested to know more c legal framework to protect service users and people.'

NC: RA trying to get to bottom of legal position.

MR: Yes, she appears to be.

[This is getting more common now - MR saying it seems to be, appears to be, as though she doesn't believe RA means what she says.]

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:40

June 2022 is when they took on a lot of new trustees I think - they seemed to have a number of trustees leaving around that time

RedToothBrush · 19/01/2024 15:39

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:35

Am I allowed to say that I don't want to be involved in something to do with my job because I find it upsetting? Surely revealing your sex to a service user counts as doing your job in this context?

Is it only me that wonders how AB could counsel a rape victim who might mention biological sex?

If they find discussion of their name humiliating and upsetting how can they function in a job? Surely it's humiliating and upsetting for service users to have their needs (after having been raped) put so far below the needs of someone who's changed their name and finds mention of their previous name triggering, somehow.

Are DBS checks 'humiliating'?

You literally need to be asked about your previous names as part of safeguarding protocols.

Anyone who refuses to discuss this, is a walking red flag.

Madcats · 19/01/2024 15:38

Chrysanthemum5 · 19/01/2024 15:24

I think the witness is a board member not staff?

Yes MR is a fairly new Board member, who is a fundraiser for a theatre as a day job (and worked with the Board there). She was appointed to the Board of ERCC in June 2022.

pronounsbundlebundle · 19/01/2024 15:37

Just catching up as had to do 2 school runs. Thank goddess double standards is finally mentioned.

Walk on eggshells around AB (who clearly doesn't give a shit about service users)

Harass RA (who clearly cares a lot about everyone and is trying to balance needs)

And somehow DARVO so that the opposite is true

Froodwithatowel · 19/01/2024 15:36

NC needs a 'double standards' card she can just raise at intervals to save time.

Swipe left for the next trending thread