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

I’m only dipping in and out of this, but ffs, is this really the standard of thinking we can expect from academics ie the people paid by our society to erm, think???

Or read the actual aims of the group?

Ben: 🤨

Her witness statement says she thought the network were being disingenuous but she can't remember why she thought that

She didn't listen to the podcast BINGO
She relied on someone's elses thoughts of what was in the podcast BINGO

Will we get to hear/read Ben Cooper’s summation at the end of all this? And the judge’s verdict?

BC: Open letter - did you say by signing this you thought you would be calming the situation

NS: yes. Hoping to open useful academic debate in the OU re the network

Signed in Solidarity coming in three... two... one

NS...🤐

If there's time in the allotted timetable, we'll hear BC's closing arguments MavisMcMinty. Then the decision in about 3+ months, don't be surprised if that ends up being 6+.

I think this is the first person who has agreed that they agreed with the letter and that's why they signed it

BC- do you agree that signing a letter means you are agreeing with what it's saying
NS- can I just have a moment to remind myself of what's in the letter
BC- of course. Then I'll ask my question again

In my whole career of 30 yrs I've had 2, both of whom were delightful and not into any of this drama.

Comparable length of career but substantially greater numbers. However, in last 10 years, I'd have to estimate that the number has increased in a manner that might (colloquially) be described as exponential. (Healthcare.)

Socially and in my general environment, I'd say the numbers were there but quite few but now, courtesy of younger generations, family friends, and more widely, I'd say the rate of increase is the same.

NB: for both scenarios, all of the previous colleagues/etc. were MtF. Currently, I'd say that it's predominantly NB (mostly female by origin) or FtM in younger generations and MtF in older.

Oh wait but she doesn't agree that the letter calling for the network to lose OU links meant that - it was just a nice way to calm down the argument

BC: I'm going to leave that there, and make submissions about that answer.

😂

BC: We've had a no of witnesses saying they signed the letter not really agreeing. Do you think that if you sign a letter it is taken you agree with what's in it

NS: I need to have a look at the letter.

BC: repeats q

NS: I agree with the letter

BC: You were agreeing with the call for the OU to withdraw afiliation

NS: I don't read the letter as that strong. Just to open up debate re topic.

BC: I will leave it there and make submissions

"I think I'm going to leave it there and make submissions about that answer" is Ben-speak for "liar liar pants on fire", isn't it?

I imagine I'd get completely confused under questioning but then I don't sign letters without reading them

BC: you were deliberately seeking to highlight the weight of complaint re network

KS: That's fair, but I don't think it's hostile

BC: Not hostile to 6 people that you shouldn't exist as a OU network

KS: no. I was just calling for it not to use OU name and logo etc

BC: what's the difference?

Next time my kids lie I'm going to say I'm going to leave it there and make submissions about that answer.

I was just going to say that.

They really are the most hopeless shower. I am glad that we are playing tribunal bingo rather than having a drink every time someone says I was on holiday/I can't remember/I trusted what other people told me/I drove into a bin, otherwise I'd be properly sozzled by now.

BC finished with Nats now.

KS: having heard a lot from t and nb colleagues/students I tweeted to raise awareness of GCRN existing and open up debate

BC: But debate you're opening up is whether GCRN is allowed to exist

KS: It's more to do with the network and members and being associated with the univ

Those are my qs [!]

BC- what's the difference between saying can't use the logo and OU name and not being an OU network?
NS - I didn't know much about the network and after talking to trans and non binary colleagues I wanted to open up a debate

I was on holiday/I can't remember/I trusted what other people told me/I drove into a bin

tbh, the only thing we're missing is "It was quarter to 5 on a Friday in the robing room before I switched on my mobile…"

if NS wants to debate then surely the best thing would be to join the network not close it down?