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.

And we're in!

Welcome to the conference.

In and looking at an empty room!

Filing in steadily now.

Saw BoiledBeetle on the attendance list and thought it must be a mumsnetter

😁

😁

The first witness, for ERCC, had to give out her full home address. I don't agree with her having to do that at all.

If I was in that position knowing it was online and live I'd write it down and pass them the piece of paper. No way would I be broadcasting it.

In Scotland, all witnesses have to give their address. I don't agree with it either. No lay attendee needs to know that information.

They do in some US states as well.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1748276923338207647?s=19

Link to the live tweets

MR is a board member. Volunteer, not remunerated. Her first board membership. Seven trustees on board. DH is looking at period May 22-May 23. MR now chairs income and fund generating group - treasurer.

MR: No involvement with delivery services. Dealt with MW, Nico and Katie.

MR involved as chair of panel for disciplinary of RA. MW asked her.

DH: Discussion c who should be on panel?

MR: [limited previous experience] They asked someone else who was too busy (laughs)

DH: Any training by ERCC c managing disciplinary process?

MR: No. By previous employment but not ERCC

Yay, switching browser worked! Now just WFTCHTJ. Are they letting waiting observers in in batches?

Currently 4 waiting in the lobby. Clerk usually pretty fast in letting people in.

Niamh McCrossan obviously not giving evidence as she is watching

DH: Info c procedures disciplinary procedures. There were 3 board members comprising panel.

MR: As Nico, MW and Katie - senior mgmt team - had all been interviewed, the matter had to be sent to people not connected with it, so it was put up to board.

DH: The other board members involved with this, how much experience?

MR: Think they were in first term on board, not sure.

DH: Any support eg by HR provided?

MR: Not from ERCC. We had access to legal employment advice throughout. We sought advice on every step of the procedure.

Argh, waiting to be let in.

I don't agree with giving a full address too - it seems insane- can they give a written answer?

Was the 'legal employment advice' from actual lawyers or Stonewall, I wonder?

Just been chucked out. WFTCHTJ.

Snap

And back in the room!

Looked to be about 15 disconnected all at once, including the clerk!

MR wrote a letter to RA, having discussed with colleagues.

DH: Why is the third allegation labelled as gross misconduct?

MR: with relation to the discip policy, inc re the trans-inclusion policy. In the policy there are lists of charges classified as misconduct or gross misconduct. Lots of discussion. We felt policy was guiding us to make it gross misconduct in this case.

Discussing the policy that listed charges falling into 'misconduct' and 'gross misconduct' - board agreed guided into category of 'gross misconduct.'

I thought the party line was that that classification was naught but an admin error?