Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R

OU Departments & Networks:

HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
CT - Cath Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance

Witness for JP:

SE - Sarah Earle, Professor Modern History Uni of Oxford, Founding member GCRN

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

Because they were on the working group and senior HR and so a decision maker/adviser etc.

Not reading it when it is going to court AND you are a witness is just mind blowing.

By that stage you might be better off not reading it. You can't really argue that it wasn't your job to have read it, if you then read it just before the case goes to court.

Break now until 12.15

If I was Westminster(?) Uni I might be having a long hard look at whether she's the right person for her job there..... or at the very least rewriting her contract to specify that reading contentious grievances is part of the job..... (if not in there already).

This part was so gripping that the judge forgot they were supposed to have a break!

Mind blown. This seems slam dunk for Jo now.

All the decisions made were based on people not reading / listening to things that were central to Jo's grievance!! So just on hearsay and personal opinion!

Clearly - some rights are more right than others.

TRA rights are the Royal Flush of rights.

Love it that Ben uses 'practicable'.

How much time could she have taken on this if she didn’t even bother reading the bloody grievance?

Bet she read the TRA complaints

It does sound enthralling. Crossing my fingers that I'll get let in after the break. So annoyed to have missed the exchange.

Well, there we go. Even Ben was shocked.

In a nutshell!

No debate. What's that, a grievance full of sense and reality? Nope no, no debate.

Hopefully I will be let in at 12:15

I bet he couldn't believe his luck that she came right out and said it like that.

When he said 'Never?!' - she must have realised that she'd done a wrong 'un?? She can't be that clueless, surely?

I agree with this.

Well at least the witness took the declaration about telling the truth seriously.

Whereas others as we know consider 'truth' to be entirely made up subjective.

What documents do witnesses get given, and when, pertaining to the case? After she left the OU, she wouldn't (or shouldn't!) have had access to the grievance any more, unless or until she was given a copy in connection with the tribunal.

Just reading the Tribunal Tweets to catch up and there is an exchange tweeted:

"CM: I can say we sought legal advice and on balancing different rights the statements could not be taken down.
BC: Advisors advise, you as a working group decide. Im interested in your thinking as a working group. Anything else you can help with as to how you balance harms?"

So, again, we have reference to having sought legal advice. I would LOVE to know what form this advice took and from whom it was sought.

I suspect also there's arrogance there - she thought it was reasonable that she (as a v important person) didn't ever read it and therefore based all her input to the working group and advice on hearsay and gossip and personal opinion rather than facts or Jo's 'lived experience'. She didn't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD doesn't agree that it's reasonable for her to not read a contentious grievance and essentially - by not doing that - entirely dismiss Jo's point of view.

That alone is probably illegal, isn't it? If an employee raises a grievance surely it's illegal for senior managers to make decisions about that grievance without reading it / knowing the facts?

Apologies for the basic question - what responsibility do universities have towards researchers? From what I have seen of universities, a researcher is almost like a self-employed unit (with respect to their research) - they choose their research topic, build their own networks, get their own grants, etc. Why would the university have any responsibility for the consequences? I can see that the university would do so wrt teaching, as that is something commissioned by the university, but why for research?

I still can’t believe the legal advice was to leave the open letter up.

We suspend employees but are clear this is to allow time to investigate and in no way does it indicate any judgement. Taking down the open letter whilst investigating the grievance is perfectly reasonable.

Generally they each get given an individual bundle with documents that relate to them/their job/what they were involved in.

I would think the grievance was in her bundle, given that everyone probably thought she'd read it before.

Given she doesn't work at the OU anymore I wonder if the OU knew in advance that she had never read the grievance and would say that in court?!! Nasty surprise for their side if not....

Researchers are not (usually) self-employed, they are employees, and the employer has all the usual duties towards them.