Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[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
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://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)

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

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

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

J: you mention aspect 3 of the claim. What do I use as a ref for aspect 3

BC: in my opening submissions. Divided detriments into 3 groups

1. the isolation and ostracism

1. harassment by individ and public letters

1. respondents' response and handing of reaction to GCRN and grievance

Go Ben!

He's made submission about the cogency of prof westmarland's evidence more generally.

BC: Unless she is a astonishingly good actor and has been manipulating people all the way through... and if you think that after seeing her give evidence there is nothing more I can say

I'm so glad he's said this.

BC (c racist uncle comment): Yes,unless JP has hallucinated it or made it up on the day - and I have made further submissions about the cogency of LW evidence generally.

I think he was just doing his usual, careful build up of his case (and covering everything!)

I have made submissions about the cogence of LM evidence.

POW!

Back of the net!

And me

"BC. Prof H saw her break down so it's not true she had a private and personal persona in all this. She's in Sergeant Major mode trying to create space. Unless u think she's an arch manipulator or great actress, she didnt put everything down in one place"

Copied from TT

BC Her being a campaigner is a non starter. She was organsising but not politically active here, She was trying to set up a RN in a hostile environment which she didnt deserve. She doesnt have special rules applied cos she WhatsApped strategy

BC I break it into 3 aspects
J what do I use as a ref for aspect 3?
BC 1 is ostracism and isolation. 2 is harassment and public letters. 3is handling of the respondent and her grievance.
J Ok, discussing paras
BC Aspect 1 key is email exchange between LD and DD and racist uncle

BC comment. The uncle comment, JM thinks it was a one off but it's there so unless the c has hallucinated it follows this must have been said by Miss Westmarland.
BC Many in dept are opposed to her beliefs and hasnt been explained away and linked to her isolation

BC The witnesses havent explained cogently why DD did something on the day of the meeting and the emails. These are key to the 1st set of detriments. They're not small issues. Being compared to a racist and then pointed silence in a mtg and then told by LM
a mtg and then told by LM that u shldnt speak

BC: If compared to racist by dep hod
then experience pointed silence and ostracism after being cancelled, one of worst things to happen to an academic
then told by hod shouldn't speak c your research any more cos too challenging for members of dep

All was v significant for JP. Keeps dwelling on it and coming back to it

JP trying to make it work, and then in June - [da da da] - Forstater. Then you see the sudden release for JP

From watching the other tribunals, this bit is all about clarifying the law rather than a rousing speech at the end.

This is my preferred wedding present for the more mature couple who already have everything. ALWAYS appreciated

😍

Copied from TT

BC about yr experiences, that's signif. The C keeps dwelling on the uncle comment. The obvious reason why she didnt complain in 2019 she wanted to stay at the OU and make things work. Also Forstater happened in June 21, even if a 1st stage judgement

BC So u see the sudden release

BC Aspect 2 engages the principle and go thru the comms and why they were sent and the context. I'd add JM fails to engage w where she says the line is. Much as she says re FoS and gets close to it being a free for all. It cant just be involving

BC abusive language
J U cant say you're not foing to give us any line here
BC In my submissions they give a flavour of where the line is [read]. Touchstone is its an abuse of freedom to close down freedom. A pretty good indicator of where the line shld be. JM gives no indication

BC of where the line shld be. The 3rd is Prof H's response to yr Q Judge re how he'd found out about the WGs decision on interim measures. The only reason given was it cld cause distress. This is absol key as confirmation of the case I'd given to the witnesses

@ickky Thank you for reposting from TT as you go

Or we're a bit thick. I know I am.

Or we're a bit thick. I know I am.

Oh yes, it's why I don't earn the big bucks. 😂

But if this were your field, and you'd trained in it and done all the reading, you'd probably know exactly how to navigate it. Much of this is shorthand between barrister and judge.

It's all so clear now, isn't it @ickky ?😂

I'm sure you're not, you just don't have a detailed knowledge of employment law. I think it's fairer to say we haven't seen all the documents, so we're having to make sense of this second or third hand, so we're bound to get confused occasionally.

Also it would have helped if we'd read the closing statements. J said she didn't want them to go over stuff that was in that. Presumably that's where the burning underwear accusations are residing.

Copied from TT

J I thought u said reputational damage?
BC Either way it's appeasing those disagreeing w her GC beliefs. I can hear whispering re the word distress. This neither adds or subtracts from my point - distress isnt an answer to the point. Pandering to or appeasement to

BC discrimination isnt allowed. Then the inadequacy of dealing with the grievance, incl the WG. Prof Hs gives a window onto the decision making, only window we have. Finally limitation, GC beleifs werent protected before 21st? June. Before this MS Reindorf might have been indire

BC discrim against, so this was a non starter. ?C applied for direct discrim amendment 3 months after Forstster w limitation reserved until after the final judgement which was allowed, as wasnt reasonable to bring in direct before Forstster. Obviously only a first judgement

BC Is there anything y'd like to ask me?

J The tribunal might find it helpful to be clear about which matters u want us to draw inference from re discrimination?
BC Matters in paras 35-40, esp non renewal of r'shop and CCJ conference. And some others incl points about inference

It really would have made it easier. I think we will just have to wait for the judgement to glean any insight into the submissions.

BC Is there anything y'd like to ask me?

Yes. What the b!ggery b!ll!cks is going on, & are you free for dinner next Wednesday?😁