Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 5

[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.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

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
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
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 - tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

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

Thread 3 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

The question comes up again and again asking why the OU are putting up this particular set of witnesses.

As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected, the complaint gets filed and in reply the defendant has to make their case. If they're not looking to lose, they file a full account dealing with all issues raised. If they leave gaps then they're inviting the court/tribunal to take as true the account of the complainant that does deal with the gaps. This means that the OU will have asked the relevant people to provide their version in a witness statement, and although they could refuse, this would really piss off the OU because it would undermine their case. So inevitably those providing witness statements are those who will have gone after Jo Phoenix or facilitated it.

When the papers are in, the complainant looks through the witness statements and finds areas that need further exploration and/or to be challenged. At that point the complainant can request those who have provided witness statements to be cross-examined. Although the witnesses could refuse to attend court, ie to support their written evidence, this would be a really bad idea because it would enable the complainant to rip the evidence apart and invite the court/tribunal to draw inferences as to why the defendant was willing to claim stuff but not back it up.

OU called their Pro Vice Chancellor as a witness?!?!? They must be shitting bricks. Even more now than when they decided to call him, because this case could go badly for him and if it does that's news.

Other universities must be shifting uncomfortably in their seats too.

BC: you were trying to stop KMI doing something that would be discrim

KS: no, it was to make sure GCRN had a home on the servers that would continue

Exactly @AmaryllisNightAndDay this witness is the most fascinating for me. The others were bonkers and true believers but this one could face real career consequences of he's shown to have failed to protect staff and to not allow academic feeedom

I wouldn't want to be the OU loonies who've put him in this position

Other universities must be shifting uncomfortably in their seats too.

I really hope they are. This shit has gone too far for long enough, enabled by those in positions of power at many universities.

They have failed in their duty of care to people like Jo (and many others like her) and sacrificed them at the alter of nonsense.

BC: the move limited GCRN ability to make changes to website during the move

KS: Don't know

BC: reads - whilst site is migrated - four weeks - only minimal changes poss

KS: I intervened to say not acceptable

[not sure how KS two answers here stack up]

It's more likely that the OU had to ask the pVC to produce a witness statement, as he was involved in the matters in the claiim. Then JP's team decides he needs to be cross-examined, and is therefore called as a witness.

Rather than saying the OU is calling 18 witnesses, it might be more accurate to say that 18 people were involved and required to produce witness statements, on the basis of which JP's counsel decided they needed to be cross examined.

So really the OU didn't call 18 witnesses, JP did.

BC: JP told you c migration problem in early July. You raised it with someone. Reply to you was content changes only restricted to a few days max.

KS: I reply, a few days = acceptable.

BC: Reads from IT Digital services memo - "I've started review. Still restrictions on changes from the period of the migration."

BC: you understood principles of non-discrim re OU and working group. Did you understand OU also had duty to stop its employees harassing GCRN and members.

KS: Yes

With all this technical discussion - how big was the GCRN at that point that it needed 4 weeks to migrate the website? Really? Surely its the kind of thing that gets done over a weekend? (well that's what happens with Sharepoint sites at my gaff)

BC - did you also understand OU had a duty to stop it's employees from discrim against other employees
KS - yes

So really the OU didn't call 18 witnesses, JP did.

Interesting perspective. In earlier discussions (in the run-up to the tribunal), I remember the costs shooting up because the OU had said it was putting up a lot of witnesses.

I take your point but if you don't contest WS and cross-examine them, does your representative get to use them in the tribunal when you had the option of calling them for cross-examination but didn't because of costs?

And also failing in their duty of care to their students who are being fed this way of thinking by their "educators".

Thanks Chrysanthemum. I'll content myself with the commentary here then.

BC: in aftermath of GCRN you needed to take a view on what was and wasn't acceptable and issue clear guidance.

KS: Don't remember. Was going to take some time to develop debate on this and talk to people.

BC: so you didn't issue clear guidance to employees then

KS: I'm going to think about that for a second...

still thinking...

BC - do you agree you needed to issue some clear guidance on what was acceptable in debating these issues after formation of GCRN
KS - I'm not clear about the timing

...finishes thinking

KS: I don't know the context for this

BC: let me take you to it.

😂

BC: do you agree you didn't get around to issuing clear guidance

KS: i don't remember personally being involved in guidance. Someone else in the univ might have issued some

I wonder where the GCRN and the other SRA are now hosted

Did he really just say they released guidance but then didn't check if that was actually put into any policies

BC: one rule of issuing clear guidance - any attempt to isolate, excl or make someone feel unwelcome on basis of beliefs isn't permissible - either GC or Gi beliefs

KS: yes

BC: Do you agree that would have been a helpful bit of guidance to put out at that time

KS: that would be a reasonable statement to make

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect if one side puts up a witness statement, the tribunal is either more likely to (or must) accept it at face value unless the witness is cross examined.

So perhaps it goes like this: the OU felt that it needed witness statements from all 18 people to refute the claims as best as possible. After that, it's up to JP's team to decide that they all need to be cross examined and get called.

So If JP's statement of claim says that all 18 people discriminated against her, the OU has to get all of them to deny it (or her claim will stand on its face, against those that don't) and at that point the die is basically cast and they all have to appear.

It might be that neither side really had a choice about how many witnesses to call.

I'm not sure he even said they released guidance actually

BC- Clear guidance would have been noone should do anything that makes anyone with GC views or trans status feel excluded
KS - yes, that would have been a reasonable statement to make