Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 2

..and we know from experience that only people who the people in authority like are entitled to fairness, justice, adherence to workplace regs, protection from harassment.
If HR doesn't like you, don't expect anybody to assert your rights as an employee or as a human being, you're on your own and deserve all you get.
HR have a drawer full of firelighters and matches with your name on it..

Talking about submissions now

Nick Wallis will give it all due diligence. My fear is the tra repercussions should he turn up stuff they aren't happy with.

From TT

CM: p3689, outcome letter. Point 7. You say, you can't comment on legal definition of harassment but you accept the C perceives harassment. So it's not all about procedure? You don't say, "outside scope"?
HH: No
CM: Did you seek legal advice on the definition?
HH: No
CM: Did you use the EDI code as benchmark?
HH: I read a number of definitions of harassment.
CM: Doesn't this put it all on C's shoulders? makes it about her perceptions, not what happened?
HH: I don't think that's what I'm saying.
CM p3544 this is the 'management case'
CM: C does see this until disclosure. Could you read this and the next page
CM: The first appeal point. Do take the time to read.
CM: And now p3685-3687, this is your appeal outcome letter.
CM: At the end of this, there is a copy-and-paste of the management case. Virtually identical. You agree?
HH: Yes v similar
CM: And C would not know that, bcs hadn't seen the doc?
HH: I don't know ...
CM: C wanted an independent officer, and what she got was a transcription service for the managment case.
HH: No, not what happened.
CM: No further Qs.
J: No Qs from me
BW: Or from me

😳

Horrible people aren't they.

Judge no qs
None from other bloke

Witness leaves

Wow. That was awful.

CM finished

I am assuming our usual thread derailer ( laxy ) is now hotfooting over to complain about the panel headed by the (unreliable blogger) Nick Wallis and the clearly unreliable Alice Sullivan (Queen of Sex based Stats and Data). How those 2 wastrels were chosen to do this when our old friend knows so much more is unbelievable 🤣

It sounds like she actually disliked her.

This witness is coming across as completely biased against SR imho.

From TT

CM: C says, she can't remember all the points from the beginning. you don't share the 'management case' which is basically what that had been?
HH: No
CM: You say, there's a lot here and I will want to consider it. The sum total of the notes the C received from this meeting - p3646 - has the whole of the intro, the 'management case', reduced to 1 sentence.
CM: p3648 - confirmation that mtg will be recorded - you were recording it, or the ICB?
HH: I don't know.
CM: Was the recordin shared with C?
HH: I don't know.
CM: C thanks you for the mtg, offers to write you any further evidence you might need, you don't that that up?
HH: No
CM: I took you to the point about misinterpretation of harassment, in the G. As officer you shd consider?
HH: Yes
CM: p3688 your letter - says actions didn't amount to bullying / harassment.
CM: You don't even uphold the original finding of harassment.
HH: I don't reach a conclusion, bcs, appeal was about process etc. Not my role to re-investigate.

This is painful to read but very helpful to the claimant's case.

.

HH: Well the C didn't ask for another meeting, more time

Was the claimant pointing out there was a long list of points she wanted to talk about not enough of a fucking clue?

That's the one.

The famously unreliable and not at all highly regarded, Nick Wallis 😂

From TT

CM: GA mtg was recorded, we have the transcript here. C says, after Ms Adam's intro, that it's hard to take in that long list of points but she does have things to say about all of them, hopes there will be time to cover. You say, no we don't have a huge amount of time, yes?
HH: Yes
CM: You don't say, we will take all the time we need - we can have a later meeting to complete if needed?
HH: No
CM: p3599, the C says - there is a lot to respond to, I know we have only 10 minutes left, you again don't say "we can come back if we need to"
HH: Well the C didn't ask for another meeting, more time
CM: Whose responsibility to manage time? You or C?
HH: Me 😳
CM: p3607 again we see C querying time, again you say nothing
HH: No

[this is really awful. Poor SR]

Oh, that unreliable Nick Wallis, you mean??

This is just painful.

From TT

CM: C also raises issue of independence of officers, and conflicts of interest. You see that? p3530
HH: Yes
CM: Independence of mind was central to her concerns?
HH: Yes, raises external possibility
CM: You didn't consider that.
HH: No
CM: You would have needed to demonstrate independence? Willingness to depart from management line if needed?
HH: Yes
CM: p3582 The 'management case' had been seen by you, but not by the C? Until disclosure for these proceedings?
HH: I don't know, don't dispute.
CM: So at the appeal meeting, you have a document that the C has not seen. You only had 3 documents to work on, and one of them C had not seen?
HH: I can't remember which I had when but yes those were the 3

From TT

CM: p3127. Presumably you were aware that at the time of the appeal, C's employment precarious from her PoV - she'd resigned, was waiting on this?
HH: No not aware at the time, found out later.
CM: Were you aware at the time you decided appeal?
HH: I don't think there was anything in docs I had about that.
CM: What info did you have?
HH: Grievance appeal from C, management case, outcome letter. I could have looked at other things if I'd wanted but I didn't.
CM: p3529-3530, this is C's G-appeal. Serious and substantive concerns?
HH: Yes
CM: mentions harassment under EA2010, you see that?
HH: Yes
CM: She says ICB had failed to protect her from harassment, yes?
HH: You can read that into it.
CM: It's the natural reading. Failure to protect her. And she says, deliberate misinterpretation of 'harassment'. You see that?
HH: Yes
CM: para 11 of your WS.
CM: Struggling to understand why you characterise the appeal as "procedural concerns"?
HH: Many of the things raised were around timeliness and the actions during the IX.
CM: Your WS says, mainly procedual concerns, do you stand by that description?
HH: It was the starting point.

Just keep turning it round!!

CM is being an IT prat. The judges advice is priceless.

Fortunately for me I was only there for less than 2 years and managed to avoid most of the madness!

Password anyone??

Think that's getting changed right now!