Reports Roz Adams successful in her action against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

NC not confining herself to the faults of ERCC and RCS.

NC: The trib has the power to make recommendations re the EA, which is an area of employment law where inaccurate received wisdom has sprung up possibly from the bench handbook.

[My emphasis]

My mistake, the email was to funders:

MR wrote to main funders [reads regretfully unsuccessful in tribunal, board received it w sadness and humility and considering an appeal.

The alleged conduct of CEO at uni may have been appropriate.

(I think this refers to Nicole Jones' evidence)

They contacted re the event and are satisfied this event was misrepresented at the tribunal.

They went out of their way to clear MW's name - by MW or MR. Rather than Ix the tribunal findings. ERCC say have insurance that fully covers the compensation.

I'm going to have to get myself a cup of strong coffee and re-read for the 4th time and see if I can make any sense of the words!

But thanks ...

This is from Roz Adams' evidence today

No idea but it was said that Mairi Rosko had sent a communication reassuring staff of this, if I understand it correctly.

MW Mridul Wadhwa

MR Mairi Rosko (who is now in charge of ERCC it seems)

C no evidence of Ix. In faact MR, tried to dismiss the findings. MW was allowed to take leave and by mutual agreement was "time for a change of leadership". No sense of MW having to take responsibility or risl reputational damage. Feels like a huge misjustice and treats
C employees differently based on belief. This email from MW and MR, who gave evidence and headed disc hearing, who has then been promoted to convener. MR wrote to main funders [reads regretfully unsuccessful in tribunal, board received it w sadness and humility and considering
C an appeal. The alleged conduct of CEO at uni may have been appropriate. They contacted re the event and are satisfied this event was misrepresented at the tribunal. They went out of their way to clear MW's name - by MW or MR. Rather than Ix the tribunal findings. ERCC say have
C insurance that fully covers the compensation.

archive.ph/2024.10.14-103626/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1845745662190588282.html

Many charities are now Companies Limited by Guarantee, which means that Trustees are typically only liable for £1/each.

Employers Liability Insurance is compulsory (and certificates need to be displayed for employees and volunteers to see).

Presumably in this case the insurers took the view that it was better to keep the Board and staff silent as they'd already caused enough damage.

Interesting have just seen this that says a recent court case set a precedent.
https://btuonline.co.uk/managers-have-personal-liability-for-acts-of-discrimination/

But not sure if this applies to Scotland.

What insurers?

You mean ERCC had taken out employer insurance?

Sorry, just dont understand.

And presumably if management of ERCC have been found at fault by an employment tribunal, the insurers will say they have breached the policy they have with them. The same as if say someone suffered any injury, but it was clear it was caused by managment failure to properly maintain the workplace.

Or do insurers pay out even if the policy holder is at fault?

Does that mean LB K&C can claim insurance for the fire damage at Grenfell Tower?

@IwantToRetire
Can anyone explain who is going to pay compensation?

I think its the insurers. This was mentioned today and I thought the mention was intended to send the message to the Judge that without the soft remedies ERCC has not really suffered at all. Not even in terms of any damage payments.

Certainly not suffered to the extent that they made Roz suffer. They have apologised for language, not content. No addressing what to do about gender critical staff (i.e. so as not to stifle their opinions and hound them out as they have evidently done before) even though now forced to do something to help GC service users. They have not admitted that they took disciplinary action against Roz. They have ducked, dived and weaved a murky tale. So much effort has been expended on not changing things where they can possibly avoid it. Contast made with the James Esses apology - which was an actual apology. Grrr.

I agree. I’m increasingly of the belief that when they have to recruit again they might do exactly as they did before, when hiring Wadhwa, and claim that the exceptions for single-sex services in the Equality Act allow males claiming to be women to work there.

All employers shouod have employee liability insurance but I don't know if that covers compensation for discrimination cases.

• asking for a public apology and that it's ok to have GC beliefs at ERCC
• training on the EA re freedom of belief and expression.

Goodness that seems very feeble.

It is evidence that not just ERCC but RC Scotland, funders, charity commissioners, politicians turned a blind eye to what was going on, even though many reported, complained.

MW was enabled by all those who had the responsibility to see nothing like this ever happened.

If this doesn't come out of this stage of the employment legal case then OSCR should be made to carry out a proper enquiry https://www.oscr.org.uk/

They too should be ashamed.

Arrived very late to today's development.

Can anyone explain who is going to pay compensation?

Any money ERCC has will be via funded which will be ring fenced on the basis of what the money was given. ie even if there are £££s left over from CEO resigning (much too late) the underspend on the salary can only be used on salary.

Do trustees become liable?

Or will it just come down to fund raising which may mean GC women bailing out ERCC so that Roz gets her compensation.

Anyone know, was this discussed.

Thanks

@UtopiaPlanitia I know, the worrying thing is they can’t see they were in the wrong. They are so wedded to the ideology there is no way they can accept the judgement.

ERCC seem determined not to give an inch unless forced to.

Just read Tribunal tweets, it’s really shocking that the “soft” remedies are in dispute and not the ££. Plus ERCC hasn’t put up a witness.

I feel so sorry for Ros as she wants and deserves to have all accusations formally retracted to clear her name.

I would hope that this vindictive and truly shocking absence of recognisable governance will crop up in any due diligence search should any of the trustees apply for a comparable position in the future. Error of judgment doesn't begin to cover this.

Second session starts here: https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1845776552434303225

He's no longer an employee, so unlikely. Tbh, I can't imagine what he could say that would come close to making his behaviour forgivable. In the end though, they employed him. He behaved entirely predictably, like the fable of the frog carrying the scorpion over the river, it's in his nature. The people who enabled him that are still in post, who still think they did nothing wrong, or they wouldn't still be there, they should give some grovelling apologies just before the door catches them on their way out.

Rob Adams: It beggars belief really.

And so say all of us.

For those not on TwiX, this should all be on the Tribunal Tweets substack pages later.

Thanks, that makes sense 🙂

This is shocking from Roz Adams

C accountability. It's hard having this status of being potentially transphobic, so has an impact on me in many situations
NC U didn't mention the restrictions in place in June 2024 - the terms of the restrictions on publicity
C They relied on claiming what I'd done was

C sexual misconduct and this was terrifying. I'm sure it was an illegal attempt to use legislation. Having this linked to my name for months, until an ACAS meeting when it was dropped. They thought it was ok to do this to an employee - angered and upset me

asking for a public apology

I hope it has to be made by Mridul Wadhwa himself.

Investigation, I believe

Excellent. Especially the training.

Here's hoping it could set a precedent for any company, organisation, government department, who aren't quite sure of the law.