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

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.

Yes this was my thought too.

So is the OU throwing the witnesses under the bus by giving them free reign in the witness stand.

Deb Drake is a great superhero everyday persona name but I suspect this might be our super villain. Is she likely to take the stand today?

From the witnesses we've seen, i've been trying to work out who did write the poxy letter.

I imagine Jo has her suspicions. The tone/style might have given it away.

I'm guessing Dr Drake will be similarly baffled about the origins of the letter, as well.

Hercule Poirot would have worked out who wrote the letter by just letting people talk and talk. Hopefully it becomes clear today.

I'll say this for the last witness yesterday, the honesty was refreshing. Still plenty of amnesia going on, but yes she wrote the letter (even if she cant remember how or who with); yes she advised (poorly) them about avoiding FoI requests; yes she deleted the WhatsApp groups (no 'new phone' claims).

Arrogance? Stupidity? A genuine belief in the importance of truth over personal advantage? Probably mainly the first one, from someone who actually wrote a paper setting out how she'd done similar previously. No matter - the words were admissions even if they identified as Shields of Righteousness.

My work / home life is out of control at thr moment, which us annoying because I wanted to follow this more closely.

I have a couple of questions for those with legal kbowledge:

1. Hows it going? From the thread, it seems that Jo has the upper hand, but is that the case?

2. The letter - Ben's questions about who wrote it, what us the purpose? To force the witnesses into a position where they need to claim amnesia, is that to discredit them on this point? Or show them to be unreliable witnesses generally?

I'm reminded of something my dear old mum used to say. Let people talk, they want to tell their stories.
I never really understood what she meant until lately. I always thought she was being kind about rambling old war tales having grown up in NI but I think now it was a way of deciding whether a person was going to be a good person in your life.

Unfortunately @Hellomynameisnt a lot of Stonewall influence reaches far and as we've seen believers of the one true faith will defend their stance to the bitter end. Like those who oppose abortion can twist themselves in knots trying to convince everyone its about the babies whilst ignoring children dying of malnutrition. Whilst we gender atheists can see that their reasoning has more holes than a lace doily they can only see the threads or pretend to.

@Hellomynameisnt I think BC is trying to show the letter was a Co-ordinated attack on Jo by a number of colleagues who then whipped up colleagues to sign = bullying/harassment/discrimination/mob rule.

Plus that the OU knew this from their investigation but didn’t take it down = discrimination or take action against the ringleaders.

I also think BC has shown the witnesses lied in their statements which means they can’t be relied on so Jo’s statement is likely to be correct.

JW was hard on Jo to try to show she lied too, Jo didn’t and came over as honest as she admitted failings. This adds credibility to her statement and evidence.

I think a key phrase from on witness tests ready was I wasn’t under oath then.

Unfortunately there's not the time alloted in the special timetable to allow the OU lot to talk themselves into the large hole they dug during their testimonies.

I know at the start JM said she didn't usually do re-examination- is that usual? I thought re-examination was to try to correct any poor impressions caused by the witness' evidence?

And are there any consequences for not being truthful? Obviously we are biased so are sure the witnesses are being economical with the truth - but if the panel thinks people have not been truthful what happens? The witnesses are all under oath and presumably there is a point to that?

Thanks for the replies that is really helpful. Fingers crossed for Jo and I really hope the corporate, Non profit and education sectors look on and learn.

Your lovely mum sounds wise, Rocket. And come to think of it, her advice is another facet of the oft-quoted 'when somebody shows you who they are, believe them,' isn’t it?

This lot are sure as heck giving us plenty of opportunity to judge the worth of that, and HOW.

Are we nearly there yet?

<sighs>

Pardon me but I'm new here. (the only really silly question is the one you didn't ask)
Whilst the OU Senior Muppets have made a very bad impression on everyone of us. How does this bear on the Specific Case that Jo has with her employer? After all it is not the usefulness of the OU Humanities Dept that matters.

Does anyone know how long it is likely to be before we have a decision?

I've read most of the TT but I missed this zinger of a line! Please could you tell me who said it? I need to check I've read their questioning.

In the normal court of events one might expect about 3 months GreyDressOh. For these "controversial" gender related cases it seems to be more like 6 months. Although in their defence the panel do have considerably more material to wade through than one would normally get in an ET.

The Pro Vice Chancellor gave evidence yesterday (quite poorly, I'd say), and Ben Cooper's aim would appear to be to demonstrate that the top tier of the Open University as an entity and an employer were (a) aware, and (b) hopeless, i.e. failed in their duty of care toward her.

(Good to see you on Jo's crowd funder page btw! Looks like she's doing well.)

I'd think even the hope that it might look like a small bullying group of random nuts rather than the OU is a bit of a forlorn one, surely? The OU would still have allowed this faction to form and exert its beliefs in a prejudicial and discriminatory way using its position.

Not a silly question at all. I expect one of the HR or legal experts will be able to give a better answer, but my understanding is that a lot of the muppetry (however entertaining) is indeed irrelevant. What matters is when they show they did things like: directly discriminated (e.g. trying to shut down network or deny access to resources); considered discrimination in one direction but not another (all the 'aware of causing great hurt to tr and nb colleagues' with no mention of effect on GC ones); were aware of discriminatory actions by staff(particularly coordinated ones) and did nothing about it.

And by letting witnesses muppet about, they're letting slip plenty of admissions of these.

I'm optimistic about the decision but assuming it's positive for JP, the question is how will the judgment be framed. Will it be expressed relatively neutrally or will it be damning in terms of going into details of prejudice and expressing the panel's views on the honesty or otherwise of the witnesses?