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

No re-exam by JM unless something raised by judge's questions.

Could we put we received legal advice at the time on the bingo card for a full line now.

Judge releases IF. Then realises there might be qs from the panel so un-releases and we're back to go to lunch don't discuss.

I bet IF thought that was it, feel slightly sorry for him as he has been in the witness box for a long time.

TT Commentary from this morning

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712053079019761972.html

A Dave Hall is current secretary at OU https://about.open.ac.uk/governance-ou/executive-team/university-secretary

Not on witness list - but maybe he was not in the role at the time?

I presume that an ET panel will be well aware of this and not need the OU deviation from good practice spelling out further?

I see Pilgrim Tucker has posted a case update yesterday, no response from OU solicitors for her DSAR.

I think the OU legal team are a tad busy and probably waiting for this case to be over.

copied from her page.

Dear xxxx,
Thank you for your email explaining that the Open University is again planning to take disciplinary action against me unless I remove information from my crowdfunding page.
Unfortunately however I am not currently in a position to respond, as:

• I have not yet received the letter of response from the Open University’s solicitor, although it is many months since my claims were communicated to the university by my solicitor, and the deadline for your response has now passed.

• The Open University has still not replied to my request for a review of my data subject access request (DSAR), made over 2 months ago on 07/08/2023, nor to my email chasing this request for review sent on 10/09/2023. As noted in my request the DSAR data issued by the OU neglected to include emails regarding me exchanged between relevant staff, and also contained a number of redactions that required justification as to which exemptions (as set out in the Data Protection Act 2018) were applied. I note your inclusion of 1 of the email threads cited in my request, but that your removal of redactions has not been applied to the 3rd email in the thread, and despite my request for this information I have as yet still not received the explanation for those redactions, nor for any of the other redactions that have been queried. This is particularly concerning given that earlier this year the ICO upheld my complaint regarding the OUs handling of my data after the OU failed to provide DSAR data until 8 months after my DSAR request was made, 5 months after the maximum legally permitted deadline.

It is disappointing that the OU is again threatening disciplinary action against me while concurrently failing to respond to legal requirements and timeframes, as of course these failures on the OU’s part put me at a significant disadvantage in any proceedings. However once I have received the above information from the Open University I will be in a position to respond. Kind regards Pilgrim Tucker

WRT legal advice, I am not surprised the OU sought this as most organisations would given the contentious nature of the debate. What is surprising is that it appears to be so poor. I wonder if the OU even mentioned half the stuff to them. It could explain why the last VC letter was much more balanced about GC rights.

Not feeling too sorry for him. From how he didn't deal with the situation at the time, and his lack of memory of events/awareness of the topic and its effects even now, he doesn't seem to do stuff he doesn't want to. This is making him do some real work.

@Mmmnotsure i would feel slightly sorry for anyone who has spent days being cross examined and thinks they are finished and then finds out they are not. From a mental health perspective being able to download after giving evidence is important being unable to do so until released is extremely stressful.

That does not mean I don’t think he had sloppy shoulders and was ineffective in supporting Jo.

Vwdieselnightmare
Yes, I think you're right, Manderleyagain, it's the result of being a little bit liberal ('Sigh, I know none of us believes this GC feminist nonsense, but I suppose to be fair we've got to be seen to allow them to have freedom of speech') without thinking it through. And then blaming the GC people for causing the problems that arise.

But also doing that when you have failed to create an organisational culture that values academic freedom or pluralism. They weren't talking to ppl who would be mollified by that nod to liberalism. They've recruited and developed a bunch of zealots and now they are surprised by their zealousy.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving I think BC will probably make the point with other witnesses to show the OU did not follow its own policy. I can see why IF would not know to continue as I wouldn’t expect managers to know. However, HR would absolutely know and if they asked for legal advice that should have said to continue.

Thanks Sisterpita - I presume Group People Director translates as Director of HR, so the witness Caragh Molloy will be an interesting one. Lets see if they can explain the deviation from policy/good practice/legal advice.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving definitely, it is likely she will have had legal advice. We used the term “Polkey” https://www.springhouselaw.com/glossary/polkey-deduction as one of the factors when considering going to ET or settling. If we hadn’t followed our own policies to the letter we knew we would struggle to win. It’s one reason HR has a bad rep because we insist on the policy being followed to the letter.

Lol!
Clearly, Rudyard Kipling had him in mind when he wrote his famous poem.

Very interesting. It sheds light on a situation I had a while back when I needed to make an appeal on a decision HR had taken. I won on the grounds they had not followed their own procedure, and not on the merits of the appeal itself. And I know they took legal advice before telling me I was successful.

Abso bloody lutely!

So they didn't follow their own policy, because they were being held to ransom by the extreme reaction of their own staff who may have been held over a barrel by their students?

And the response to that is, well what can you do? People are allowed to have their own reactions?

Coupled with, it's a bit of a nothing thing that Professor Phoenix should just be able to brush off. So, er, It's a mystery why I'm now facing questions from a top-notch barrister, in an expensive employment tribunal, with a woman suffering from PTSD.

i'm not au fait with legalities, but isn't that job done, tribunal over??

If just goes to show how appeasement is emboldening students.

I bet they were. I bet they were receiving detailed advice. It clearly wasn't bloody legal.

Will this be the second time that Jo lPhoenix will be responsible for the conclusion being 'that's not the law, that's the as Stonewall would like it to be'.

Is it typical for the respondent’s counsel to choose not to reexam their own witnesses? Is it a time thing? Or is that a nod to how useless the witnesses to this point have been for the OU?

The lack of cross examination means they don’t have the evidence to refute BC’s points.

OU counsel said early on that it's not her working style to re-examine witnesses.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that IF's bizarre addition to the Islamic research network example reinforces rather than invalidates BC's point.

Group A demands shut down of Hypothetical Islamic Research Network.

OU denies.

Group A claims HIRN is researching ways to execute gay people.

OU checks that HIRN isn't doing that.

At that point it becomes unignorable that Group A's demand is based on prejudice. So the OU has a duty to take action against Group A, not against HIRN.

@MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving spot on. A good HR knows when to make a sensible lawful decision.