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

To a pp's question upthread. No it's not unlawful to not read a grievance nor to ignore the procedures. Things can go against the employer at ET if they havent followed their own procedures however.
Here's how things should work. ACAS link
https://www.acas.org.uk/grievance-procedure-step-by-step

Indeed.

I'm shocked by the comment about not having read the grievance. Even if as HR head in a large organisation you couldn't t read every one that was submitted surely you would take the time when it was blowing up to the point where external legal advice was needed? Blimey.

Despite the pronoun kefuffle at the beginning, this judge does ask some decent questions.

CM really doesn't seem to have seen much of the OU case before - I know she's moved on from there so maybe she just doesn't care

That was my thought. But I wonder ... some things are so fundamental that you simply wouldn't think to ask.

'On the day of the meeting, did you put on clothes before going into the office?'

'Were you breathing throughout the discussion?'

'Did you read the grievance that led to this whole mess?'

'When', sure - they should have asked 'when'. But I can undersand 'if' not occurring to them.

Excluding from the panel people actively involved in the protests is hardly the same as impartial. I qualify on that front and I am most definitely partial.

BC: On basis of your evidence I will say to panel at the end that v little rigour or attention paid to way claimant's complaint was dealt with, and not dealt with in timely way.

CM totally disagrees.

We needed long grass on the bingo card

I wonder what the circumstances were of her leaving the OU and moving to Westminster?

Binturong, you would expect they would go through in granular detail how she assessed the grievance. It didn’t take very long for BC to discover the non reading.

If I were working for her at Westminster I would be job hunting about now.

CM disagreeing that no care was taken even though she's admitted to not knowing the OU policy; putting all the responsibility on junior staff; and not even reading the grievance.

I think that's symptomatic of the approach - Jo was a problem and they just wanted her to go away. No one cares about what this was doing to her

Surely not.

I can't get back in! I was obviously too long in making a cup of tea and having a wee 😁

Will be relying on you all to keep me updated. Was looking forward to finding out what else senior people didn't do. At this point, I'm not sure I'd be shocked by anything.

There are people who I know who think University employees 'do nothing all day except drink cups of coffee and waffle on in meetings'. I'm finding myself increasingly in sympathy with this position. What was this person doing if she failed to read such a contentious grievance?

@pronounsbundlebundle try going out and coming back in maybe they will see you then - I think the clerk isn't always able to see the waiting room

@pronounsbundlebundle As soon as they kick us out, log back in again.

BC: quotes prof Holliman - can we remove the letters while the investigation goes on. Sally Hayes (panel member) says, I completely agree. It is the significant ongoing harm they are doing to JP and our duty of care here.

BC: The panel made the case for interim measure to take down letters.

CM: Consideration was given. Outcome was that they should remain. Can't speak further re balancing of harms.

Hope I didn't nick your spot!

And, automatically referred to Dr Boukli as 'she' at one point, I think. Roughly 'she can answer that if she wants'. Exposing that despite the theatrics of the pronoun rigmarole, we (and the judge) know what a man and a woman are in reality.

Do you just have a blank screen? Is that the same as being in the waiting room?

I have the names of the participants on the left, and the chat function, but sod all else.
It seems to be a bit of pot luck whether you're let back in again.

Sorry late catching up here. Absolutely incredible that she never read the grievance. 😱

Always the passive voice with CM. Things were done and decided, but no one seems to have done or decided anything.

@Ameanstreakamilewide You need to have the camera and the mic on, this is the tribunals mic and camera.

You will need to log out and in again making sure there is no strikethrough on the camera and mic.

@Ameanstreakamilewide when that happens you need to leave and try to come back in. The tech is just rubbish