"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 9

This is one of the saddest and most anger-inducing aspects of this case - Unions abandoning women at their time of need

Remember that at Darlington dozens of nurses were unhappy with sharing facilities with a man. Not all of them were able to go to court for a variety of reasons, one of which must have been lack of union support. Especially vulnerable were the international nurses that withdrew from the complaint early on, afraid that it would affect their visa status.

So many women cowered by ONE MAN, and the might of management and unions ready to do anything to grant him his wishes.

That’s just what I was going to post

I’ve got a packet of beef mince in the freezer that has significantly better critical thinking skills than your average TG Redditor.

This is one of the saddest and most anger-inducing aspects of this case - Unions abandoning women at their time of need

Remember that at Darlington dozens of nurses were unhappy with sharing facilities with a man. Not all of them were able to go to court for a variety of reasons, one of which must have been lack of union support. Especially vulnerable were the international nurses that withdrew from the complaint early on, afraid that it would affect their visa status.

So many women cowered by ONE MAN, and the might of management and unions ready to do anything to grant him his wishes.

Costs are only awarded in Employment Tribunal cases in exceptional circumstances. The general rule is no costs awards.

To the mince?

Have they been awarded any costs? Is a decision on costs still pending? Or are they definitely not getting anything?

Bumba was Fife, not Darlington.

Bumba was Fife, not Darlington.

What a good piece! Couldn't agree more. If only people like that were in charge of the Labour Party.

In any just world, this is the moment where the trade unions would have stepped in. The protection of female workers from harassment and the defence of safe working conditions are, quite literally, the reason unions exist.
So, where were they? Where was the mighty machinery of Unison, the UK’s largest union with a predominantly female membership? Where were the GMB and Unite?
They were not standing on the picket line with these nurses. In a grotesque inversion of their founding principles, elements of the trade union movement were actively lining up against them.

This
And this explicitly means those managers setting policy
could be a game changer

The possibility that the Isla Bumbas out there (copying and pasting other organisations' Stonewall-sanctioned policies) could be held liable should be giving the cold sweats to many managers.

Just a reminder that the nurses are apparently still £25k (!) short of the funds they need for their legal costs if anyone can do any gardening. We are all in their debt...

Good analysis from a left-wing perspective by Labour Heartlands, particularly on the failings of the unions:

https://labourheartlands.com/the-naked-truth/?fbclid=Iwb21leAPYSsNjbGNrA9hJS2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHrfGSc77L2pfBzI7xdbAN0moIFgGPQyqBLJpiUJOSoeXDtNs4b44NTCHP84k_aem_ZiXKIslB6uzQZ4zwT5RzEg

That sounds like you are trying to suggest they are thick as mince. That would be unkind.

Still a corporate risk that NHS trusts have to take on board whilst policy making. Individuals will still get nervous about the potential...

...this will still force change.

I suspect a prosecution would be difficult, because it’s usually hard to find a single responsible person. Corporations etc mostly get fined fairly modestly. But this rape victim has a circular action in negligence where the damages will be colossal.

Anyone who has been following the case of the transman raped in the mental health ward should be reading this ruling very carefully.

From what I can see, the placement of all the liability on the Trust for acting unlawfully and unreasonably potentially has significant ramifications for that case.

I think it probably opens them up for Wilful Neglect under various acts - with both individuals (including policy managers) and the institute in the firing line, whilst potentially removing responsibility for the rape from the men in question.

When you read through the ruling it effectively throws out the possibility of harassment by Rose because the Trust are liable for the policy.

I do think this issue over liability resting on the Trust really should be getting senior management to sit up and take notice. The more I think about it, the more significant it seems.

It effectively means that if there is a policy which put a woman in a position where she should be safe and has a reasonable expectation of safety - eg a single sex setting or single sex care giver - but the trust acts unlawfully to override this and allows someone to self identify out of their sex they are wilfully negligent and therefore also liable. And this explicitly means those managers setting policy.

Conversely there are ramifications of women put into single sex male facilities because they identify as male. They shouldn't be allowed to for their own safety and for the privacy and dignity of the men concerned and failure to do this is wilful neglect because it's unlawful due to the SC ruling.

Hopefully this ruling will ensure that the NMC closes the investigation into the nurses.

Anyone who has been following the case of the transman raped in the mental health ward should be reading this ruling very carefully.

From what I can see, the placement of all the liability on the Trust for acting unlawfully and unreasonably potentially has significant ramifications for that case.

I think it probably opens them up for Wilful Neglect under various acts - with both individuals (including policy managers) and the institute in the firing line, whilst potentially removing responsibility for the rape from the men in question.

When you read through the ruling it effectively throws out the possibility of harassment by Rose because the Trust are liable for the policy.

I do think this issue over liability resting on the Trust really should be getting senior management to sit up and take notice. The more I think about it, the more significant it seems.

It effectively means that if there is a policy which put a woman in a position where she should be safe and has a reasonable expectation of safety - eg a single sex setting or single sex care giver - but the trust acts unlawfully to override this and allows someone to self identify out of their sex they are wilfully negligent and therefore also liable. And this explicitly means those managers setting policy.

Conversely there are ramifications of women put into single sex male facilities because they identify as male. They shouldn't be allowed to for their own safety and for the privacy and dignity of the men concerned and failure to do this is wilful neglect because it's unlawful due to the SC ruling.

That sounds like you are trying to suggest they are thick as mince. That would be unkind.