Another GC employment tribunal. Adam's vs Edinburgh Rape Crsis

[Rainbowshit]

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1746830866020442400?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

RA: Recommendations in the appeal decision included that ERCC apologise to me re timing of process and the language used re me.

There were 27 references to transphobia/c in ERCC report. I never received an apology.

NC: Disciplinary outcome - how did that make you feel?

RA: Very unsatisfactory in that they upheld I engaged in behaviour likely to distress colleague/s, inc by referring to emails I sent that were completely innocuous and I had carefully worded. There was nothing in there that was harrassment. I thought it was unjust. They said it would have been a warning, but they wouldn't issue the warning now - would waive it - but essentially they were saying I had done something seriously wrong.

NC: You appealed disciplinary decision.

RA: They were failing to engage in the actual issue, treating it as what I had done but completely out of context. I kept trying to say the important thing here is how we respond to service users, being clear and open and trauma informed. Their approach was that we would only consider AB in this and the context - the service users- wouldn't be considered.

It's stark isn't it. And pretty dark.

RA: Narrative throughout process was that I was transphobic, over and over. I wanted them to say that I was clear of that, that you couldn't say that to me, before I was safe to return to work, and none of those things was offered. I asked for mediation, support to restore relationship with AB, but there was no sense that as colleagues you need to work this out - it would only be if AB wanted to, and if they didn't want to, I couldn't even contact someone in my team.

This is mind-blowing.
Not the part about TRAs pretending women have said something they haven't, of course, but the rest of it...

RA: Basically, whatever the investigation report said, the highest members in the staff were still saying they believed I was transphobic.

RA: I was saying people were clearly asking about the sex of their ERCC worker, not their gender. I was going back into the same thing - the policy hadn't changed, the guidance hadn't changed, and they would be looking for the first opportunity to get rid of me.

RA: I was told that how to respond to service users was an operational issue. I took it to my manager, she took it up the line, and it was handed down that the guidance remains that we don't share personal information - if the service user isn't reassured to be told that we do not employ men it will be passed up to a member of the senior leadership team. There was nothing to give service users a clear and unambiguous response to their question.

So like Rachel Meade the panel will have to decide if RA’s comments were transphobic - very unlikely from what I have read. The difference between the cases is these were comments in the workplace and about the service provided.

The “admin mistake” over the gross misconduct, the attempted re-writing of the grievance, calling RA transphobic in writing multiple times what a shit show.

I suspect they got legal advice and that is why they down graded the gross misconduct.

It's always "just admin" grrrr

[I have a problem here with DH having a nice Scottish accent but knowing I probably won't like what he says.]

DH going over dates with RA leaving ERCC / going to BP.
DH going back over RA jobs previous to ERCC. Bridging the Gap for 17 years until 2020 - you wouldn't have experience of working in crisis service provision.

RA: not as such, but some crisis

DH: you wrote you and ERCC come from different disciplines.

RA: ERCC model is that people don't need a strictly counselling background. I was grateful they understood that my different skills could be useful. It comes from the history of the movement - women supporting women.

Deary me. I wonder why on earth ERCC didn't just settle and hope it all blew over.

I can't help thinking that the sooner everybody stops bringing "their whole authentic selves to work", the better.

Hopefully the mainstream press will pick up this case and highlight the appalling way that the staff and management treated their employee.

Thank you to everybody listening in and reporting back.

Bloody hell, talk about being open about a) not really caring about service users b) wanting to punish a woman for raising legitimate concerns and because they didn't feel she was deferential and obedient enough and c) a woman who does not bow down before gender ideology not having the same rights as everyone else in the organisation - disciplinary matter if your comment about a user wanting a same sex counsellor affects a colleagues self belief but it's fine for them to say gc women should die out and destroy your career and livelihood.

So very anti safeguarding if the concerns of service users cannot be raised.

If this doesn't go RA's way then women who believe in the biological reality of sex don't have equal rights as service users or employees of ERCC. This is a breach of human rights law, the EA 2010 and probably loads of employment law too. It also discriminates against religious service users whose religions require separation of the sexes in certain circumstances (of which rape counselling I'd imagine is one). And I'd argue that RA isn't even that gc - she was punished for acknowledging that a service user thought sex was real and important. Presumably if she'd told the service user to fuck off (which essentially ERCC did by saying no and not signposting to Beira's place) THAT would have been fine.

After watching this, I'd avoid ERCC if I'd been raped. Talk about those who are supposed to help you abusing you further.

DH making the point that ERCC is different from what she's used to.

RA talking about the things she appreciated ERCC gave her space to do.

DH: non violent communication [?] - is this a technique for supporting people.

RA: it's a lens through which to understand people and the world. It's bigger than that - from Carl Roger/Marshall Rosenberg, to make it teachable to all people.

DH: one of the purposes is to encourage a person of a particular perspective to consider views of someone from a different perspective?

RA: yes

DH recognises conflict is inescapable and need to negotiate

RA: and to make us realise that the other person is still a human being.

DH: Try to identify areas of common ground of humanity?

RA: try to understand that there will be something that matters v much to both parties.

it was handed down that the guidance remains that we don't share personal information - if the service user isn't reassured to be told that we do not employ men it will be passed up to a member of the senior leadership team. There was nothing to give service users a clear and unambiguous response to their question.

So the truthful and less ambiguous answer to service users would have to be "We don't employ men. We do some employ transwomen and nonbinary people. And we can't tell you who is who because that's personal information that we can't share so if it matters to you then too bad". And if a service user asks "but isn't a transwoman a man?" you'd either have to say "we don't think so, but you might see it differently" or "reframe your trauma, transphobe".

What a shitshow.

Is this ERC’s lawyer asking questions? He’s much less adversarial than lawyers on previous cases isn’t he?

Adjourned til 10am.

Dh trying to establish general debate of discourse between people with different perspectives to id if poss areas of common ground between them, which then identifies areas they are not in agreement.

RA: that's not the approach. It may be the starting point. Even if we disagree, we can empathise and identify the things that are important to others

DH: it may be that we cannot be reconciled in areas of thought and belief, where people may have to agree to disagree on certain points.

RA: there will be times where we won't hold the same beliefs and organisations need to work out a way to work with that

DH said something like "sometimes we need to just agree to disagree" and yeah, we'd be fine with that but gender ideology isn't interested in agreeing to disagree with women. Women who believe sex is real must deny that belief publicly and chant 2+2=5, they otherwise must be PUNISHED.

Denying a service users belief that sex is real and their request for a same sex counsellor is not 'agree to disagree about beliefs' it's 'my way or the highway' and 'you MUST bow down before our belief and if you don't you will be punished'.

Trying to get someone fired for disagreeing, stringing out the process to affect their finances and ability to live. That's not 'agreeing to disagree' that's persecution and harassment and ditto the comments about Beira's place. Not a lot of 'agreeing to disagree' in those disclosed exchanges is there?

And even then - the case has moved on, sorry, but to complete the thought - if you're not allowed to reassure a service user that a transman is another woman... or support a service user to avoid a transman whose voice and appearence have been masculinized because that's transphobic... then....dear oh dear.

The evidence here almost defies belief. Women CANNOT hold a protected belief they MUST comply with our beliefs, if they don't they WILL be punished, whether that's workplace sanction or denial of rape counselling.

These days I don't get shocked very easily but this is gender McCarthyism on full display.

I'm so sorry Scottish women and girls. Thank goodness at least you have JK Rowling who is single handedly providing a service for those women for whom sex matters (which will certainly be the majority) when they've been raped.

This afternoon's TT coverage:

Despite the rape crisis services spitefully trying to prevent women hearing about it or being helped.

Words fail.

I'm not surprised the barrister is being nice. His clients have Nasty Bastard all too well covered.

Well that was hair raising, hope it all made sense. Love seeing your reactions here - we don't interact with followers or comments at Tribunal Tweets obvs.

Coverage so far in our substack.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltweets/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre?r=1gxdhb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true