Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 6

[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
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
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
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 - twitter.com/tribunaltweets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thread 5 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

Falling hopelessly behind - by this point, the G&S theme may be long out-of-fashion! But, in the forlorn hope it isn't...

[LEAD OU WITNESS]
Stay, we must not lose our senses;
Ben, who tears down our defences
Will anon be here!
Questioning his dreadful trade is;
LAY-ser-focus – can’t evade it –
Help - exposure's near!

[CHORUS OF OU WITNESSES]
No, we must not lose our senses,
'Cos he tears down our defences
We should not be here!
Questioning his dreadful trade is;
AND he may also upbraid us –
Let us disappear –

[CHORUS OF OU WITNESSES]
Too late!
[BC]
Ha, ha!
[CHORUS OF OU WITNESSES]
Too late!
[BC]
Ho, ho!

[BC]
Here’s a first-rate opportunity
To expose unthinking unity,
And explore downright duplicity
And disturbing canonicity.
It shall quickly be absurdified,
Anatom’ly parsed and undermined
By a lawyer whose sanguinity
Will challenge your affinity.

[CHORUS OF OU WITNESSES]
We have missed our opportunity
Of escaping with impunity -
So hello to bad publicity
Re: our systemic toxicity!
Our inclusive claims will be denied,
Anatom’ly parsed and set aside
By a lawyer, whose acidity
Will dissolve our claimed benignity...

(Thank goodness for rhyming dictionaries is all I say!)

A little bit, we’ve had some internal comms about it but it’s not come up otherwise. Bit surprised actually thought it would be a bigger deal.

Mm, I'm not sure the OU would agree that Jo was "very very overqualified" - in fact I'm sure they wouldn't. I'm reminded of "he is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter - so far we are equal" (without checking!) Jo was arguably a cut above the candidates the OU could normally expect to attract, but that happens all the time and We Don't Talk About It. (We can't, because the market is too unfluid: it happens all the time that people become low performers in their departments because their departments really wanted an appointment in area X and this was the best person they could recruit, or high performers because for some reason it suited them to work in this particular job.) It's not like undergraduates where changing entry standards really changes who you get.

@Catiette 👏 the mental imaged conjured of all the blue haired characters cowering at BC's 'Ha, ha!' 🤣

And his support wren's 'Tweet, tweet!'

I haven't got any connection to the OU but it's also worth remembering that there's no evidence that they are any worse on this than any other universities. The fact they have the only gcrn in the country suggests to me others might be so stifling that such a thing couldn't even get off the ground. They've ended up in court because there was just enough of a 'live and let live' environment that a few people were able to make some headway, and that gave the loons something to complain (& bully) about.

I really wish universities would see what's gone wrong here and start making changes. It feels like they have failed to instill important principles in students and academics. A great outcome would be that unis started doing training to address that - on academic freedom, working with and talking to people who see things differently to you, and respect for plurality

I would expect that most would be wary of discussing it seeing what’s playing out here

And so much to question about why everything was there to write an (ostensibly) academic paper about that but everything related to JP is deleted and can’t be remembered. Such a contrast when you might be asked to stand by your words in public.

I honestly think it’s more most staff aren’t really tuned into it. The OU is a massive organisation.

The OU is a massive organisation.

HOUSE!!

oh, sorry, we’re not in Watford. As you were.

G&S theme may be long out-of-fashion!

Never. The very idea of it. As long as officialdom, pomposity and individual blowhards are there to be parodied, musical theatre will ever be the prefered response.

Brava to Catiette!

You've brought to mind Helen Lewis' BBC programme (The Church of Social Justice) from 25.30: "You have to lump it and learn to live with difference. All ages, all different views."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001b420

Rethinkinglife thanks sounds interesting. I will try and listen to that.

bum I'm in calls all day tomorrow. I've got a feeling Drake is going to be a corker

sincere thanks for the commentary from those watching

I think the difference is the OU had a Jo Phoenix and a few others who were willing to do it.

Would like some proof.
Peer reviewed evidence would be the ideal, please.
As you would expect, given where you work.

Just catching up with the thread. The OU witnesses are all of a similar calibre (bonfire of the pants type). But some trends are becoming obvious:

The letter must have been deemed indefensible by the OU's legal team - none of the proud signers want to be connected to it in any capacity. I get the feeling that BC was hoping to build a picture of how it was put together and is coming against a wall of silence (aka cowards that cannot own their own actions)

Witnesses seem to have been coached to allege lack of recollection to avoid incriminating themselves. I hope it is clear to the judge and the panel and this is not believable.

We have seen many true believers that are happy to lie in court - they know it, we know it. This was baffling me (why would a head of HR be happy to go to an ET and have her answers dismissed as unreliable?); thanks to posters upthread for explaining the psychology behind this... purity, the right side of history etc.

What did DD do considering that all the other witnesses are going out of her way to protect her? How bad is it?

The whole thing is nastier and more deliberate than I thought. Secret WhatsApp groups, instructions on how to circumvent FOIs, deleted Google documents, unavailable mobile phones... they know they have done wrong and will lie to the end in order to conceal it.

Thank you again for these threads and the running commentary

You've brought to mind Helen Lewis' BBC programme (The Church of Social Justice) from 25.30: "You have to lump it and learn to live with difference. All ages, all different views."

It's so ironic that I imagine the same people champion diversity and multi cultural multi faith communities and yet cannot be tolerant of the rights of largest group of people who've routinely been "oppressed" (their fave word) throughout history.

Ah bum I'm out this morning (sailing on a tall ship - don't ask!). Will log in this afternoon though and hope I don't miss too much this morning. I will be following as much as I can on my mobile whilst pretending to be engaged in the sailing experience. Thank you all in advance for all your witty commentary and quotations.

I have enormously admired the excellent reporting, songs and commentary on these threads.

Checking in!

I’m not a lawyer, or an HR person, but my guess is that DD has to be protected because she was Jos line manager. If she is shown to be part of this bullying mob, then it’s hard for the OU to avoid corporate responsibility. The others are equal or junior to Jo and more easily dismissed as young firebrands or whatever. I’m still reeling from some of the evidence yesterday.

Secret WhatsApp groups, instructions on how to circumvent FOIs, deleted Google documents, unavailable mobile phones... they know they have done wrong and will lie to the end in order to conceal it.

I wonder what their attitude was to Partygate and other investigations with similar claims, secret WApp groups, unavailable phones etc.? Or, again, is this Totally Different when one is on the Right Side of History?

The letter didn't write itself