Surely Mridul Wadhwa has to go now? Report into ERCC out.

Thanks for the link to the report. I'm going to try and digest it later.

This thread has aged well...

Receipts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o.amp

I've just reported that post because I think there are privacy and safeguarding concerns in it which are inappropriate to be posted here.

Having watched much of that jaw dropping employment tribunal, this is very satisfying to read.

Pretty much.

The data protection oversight and lack of employee handbook say it all.

Well total reverse ferret apparent here.

That certainly is no where to be seen in this report.

It's been done in a way that also makes it hard for tantrumers to be taken seriously.

So: a revolting human being and also shit at his job.

A damning report
If Wadhwa does leave, let us hope that will be assisted to reframe his trauma poor thing.

On the plus side, this report is pretty unequivocal and explicit in single sex being non negotiable and that survivors gender critical feelings can not be pushed back on.

RCS are being very hypocritical here, they knew what was going on with ERCC and did nothing about it. So pretending this is all a big surprise to them is sickening.

It's definitely throwing Wadhwa under the bus.

However it looks like Trustees may have tried to implement things but were Stonewalled (sic) by Wadhwa on several occasions and there is evidence for this.

I suspect damage limitation and trying to avoid an expensive redundancy package here to protect the organisation itself though is probably the bigger motivator.

While it would be great to see Wadhwa go, it will be intensely frustrating if they do simply throw him under the bus, while all those responsible for this debacle, who installed him as the face of transactivism within the rape crisis sector, get to carry on with their cruel attitudes to women.

There's other stuff in there but I will post one final thing which I think may be relevant:

Also during the meeting on 21 June 2024, the COO and HOS explained the
^pressures on ERCC resulting from a proposed significant funding reduction by the Scottish Government, which had required ERCC to start a redundancy process.

^
Happily the funding cuts had not been implemented; but the process had taken a
great deal of management time and caused stress to staff. In addition, ERCC had been involved in the tribunal case, which had also required management time and was stressful.

So on leave since the state of the redundancy process by the look of it.

This looks like you could legitimately fire without needing to pay out redundancy...

Even dropping a note on the "talk" page would be enough...

The data protection policy did not clearly state who leads on data protection. This
allows for the possibility of misunderstanding about which of the three staff named has responsibility for which element. However, in the absence of clarity, the overall responsibility would lie with the CEO:

‘The Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Office Manager are
responsible for:

• Ensuring all personal data is controlled in compliance with the Data Protection
Act 1998;

• All members of staff and volunteers have access to a copy of this policy
(located on the X drive.)
• Making sure that all workers understand the policy and procedure through
consultation and input at team meetings;

• Identifying any training requirements arising from the Data Protection Policy;
• Managing ‘subject access’ appropriately;
• Ensuring the Information Commissioner entry is up-to-date and accurate
• Ensuring that any disclosures of information are made as set out in this policy.
• The Chief Executive Officer takes day to day responsibility for processing data.’

ERCC’s data protection policy had not been updated since 2017 (although it was
marked with a review date of January 2024). It was marked that contacts had been updated in January 2024, it still referred to the Data Protection Act 1998 and had not been updated in line with GDPR / UK GDPR.

The Data Retention and Control policy was within the data protection policy supplied.

However, it concerned only employee data. A comprehensive review of data held
with retention periods was included as a schedule to a data processor agreement signed by the previous CEO in 2018 but current senior management were apparently unaware of this.

So does that mean heads are going to roll now, starting with, but not finishing with his?

Senior managers stated that service users and survivors had influenced ERCC’s
strategy. However, the evidence provided did not entirely support this. See 1.1 Strategic plan, values and professional frameworks.

The Service User Involvement Policy dated 25 May 2016 (marked as draft) was
provided on 07.08.24. Point 7 refers to friends and family receiving services from ERCC being asked to provide feedback on their experiences. Issues of confidentiality or conflict of interest were not raised within the policy. Although other policies were cited as relevant, this could cause confusion and mean these important issues were overlooked.

AND

There was no Employee handbook covering all relevant policies and procedures.

The induction checklist included a reference to a number of important policies and
procedures. The reviewer was informed at a late stage of the review that there was a folder named ‘1 Strategy and Governance’ where all policies are kept and is available to staff members.

AND

It is generally noted that sickness rates have risen since the pandemic. However,
higher sickness rates are still used as an indicator of problems with the working environment. Sickness rates at ERCC were acknowledged to be higher than average.

It appeared to the reviewer that whilst some members of staff at ERCC would feel
comfortable with the culture generated by the CEO’s gender identity/gender affirmative activist approach, it was likely that any other members of staff with more gender critical views would not be, and would be unlikely to speak up after the treatment received by RA.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD), states on its website that:
‘ Employers have a responsibility to protect the rights of all individuals, establish and communicate standards of professional behaviour and effectively manage incidents of conflict.’ The Tribunal judgment showed that there were serious instances when ERCC’s CEO failed to model or communicate professional standards of behaviour.

For example, in communicating with other members of staff her view that RA’s belief
was hateful and that by holding it RA was a bigot and a transphobe
. Also stating ata meeting at Edinburgh University that she saw firing people as a way of ensuring the staff in the organisation fully complied with her definition of trans inclusion, which the Tribunal found amounted to harassment. These instances caused damage to individuals and to the reputation of the organisation.

The minutes of the Trustee Board meeting on 08.05.24 recorded a discussion
between Trustee Board members and SMT members which revealed a difference of approach on recruitment and that the SMT had to be reminded in the strongest terms
of the need to follow ERCC’s policy. See Evidence provided by the Convener/Chair of the Trustee Board for more information.

Towards the end of the review, the reviewer was informed that the COO had been
promoted into the role at a time of crisis, had been required to carry out her previous role for the first two to three months of the new role, and was dealing with both a Tribunal and a redundancy process. This impacted her ability to assimilate information about what would be the general duties of the COO and was a huge burden. This indicates that she was not provided with an appropriate induction, support or supervision. It appears that the Trustees were not aware of this.

It should be noted that there has been significant change in the composition of the
Trustee Board since year ending 31.03.21 (see Timeline of events relevant to ERCCfor more details). None of the trustees at that date are still on the board. Six new
members joined the board in April 2021, of which only one remains. Integrating six new members at one time would be challenging for most boards, doing so during Covid lockdowns would increase that challenge. There were four resignations during
2021 and six resignations during 2022. The board currently has five members, which is smaller than it has been historically and means that Trustees (particularly the Convener/Chair) are putting in considerable personal time to the organisation alongside their paid work and other responsibilities.

The current Trustees have made it very clear that they are committed to bringing
about significant change in the organisation and have been making efforts to do so.

For example, the Trustees instructed the SMT to produce a Code of Conduct in April
2024; but implementation was not progressed by the CEO in a timely manner.

Sorry, my notes seem to end there. Still! Perfectly clear.