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.

I really wanted to put my MN username to login but thought 'pronouns bundle/bundle' might not be 'in the spirit' :)

Oh no, have I committed a GDPR breach by telling you all my pronouns??

Oh, here we go...🙄

MR drafted second letter of invitation.

DH: Only difference, is third now labelled as misconduct not gross.

MR: There was an admin error involved. We took and followed advice on every step of process. When RA raised q with me c inclusion of gross misconduct I took advice and letter was changed.

Just in case I've misunderstood, Mairi Rosko seems currently to be giving verbal evidence in support of ERCC. Does this mean she's not submitted a statement and this is how her evidence is being provided, for some reason?

In other tribunals I've watched, the evidence is provided by statement and opposing counsel then cross-examines the witness who gives verbal responses.

How the hell do they justify that as an admin error? They sought further advice, that isn't just a bloody admin error!

She got a lot of advice, didn't she. Advised to admit to admin error and apologise.

MR: Advice I received was to reissue the letter and if asked I was to say that there was an admin error, and that I had taken advice and followed it.

@nauticant Maybe it's different in Scotland, RA's evidence was the same.

https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1438030359032172545

Dropping this thread from FWS here in case it hasn't already been shared.

I'd never have consented to be part of a disciplinary panel with similarly inexperienced board members during my first experience of a board appointment. Far less chair it.

What sort of governance is this?

Quite frankly that bit alone they treated her appallingly, and gave no fucks as to the stress they had put her under with their 'admin error'.

In Scotland witnesses provide evidence verbally, although there seems to be a written statement of facts that I assume all agree with. Therefore the witness is first questioned by 'their side' and then cross examined.

That was my assumption Ereshkigalangcleg. Of course, the downsides are that opposing counsel can be surprised by new stuff, and this means they might miss stuff, and it extends the proceedings. Maybe not ideal when the point of tribunals like these is to provide paper-heavy and thus streamlined proceedings.

funny how for some people, the mere possibility that someone could possibly know their sex is so traumatising it requires another employee to be fired (even though said employee didn't actually do anything wrong and was just asking safeguarding questions) but for others an employee's life being turned upside down by being told they've committed 'gross misconduct' is neither here nor there and an 'admin error'.

It's DARVO.

Should rape crisis centre trustees be committing DARVO on employees? The gross misconduct 'admin error' is clear, obvious bullshit.

And the reality is that everyone knows full well the sex of non binary people the second they meet them.

What's going on with this table in the data policy? RA didn't recognise it yesterday, MR doesn't recognise it today. Something rotten in Denmark?

But that's a lie isn't it? the advice was to lie?

[Lots of page turning to the trans-inclusion policy and anti-bullying and harrassment policies.]

DH: There is reference in both disciplinary invite letters to data policy. Do you have this.

[Sound gone, again...]

DH now talking about a table which MR says she doesn't remember seeing in initial papers.

Transcript c disciplinary meeting, MR prepared bulk of it. Mtg was recorded.

MR: I typed it by listening carefully to recording. It was days and days and days of work for me fitted around other [serious] family commitments.

DH: email from you to RA. It says pls read revised letter I sent, it will be helpful to you.

MR: I had been working on assumption RA was reading everything we sent. It became apparent to me that she probably hadn't read the letter and this was causing her upset - wanted to make her feel more comfortable, and ensure that the error correction had been rec'd.

I was wondering if it was the same issue that Roz had yesterday re a table not being there.

Continuing to flog the dead horse of an 'admin error', in the hope that RA would be reassured by the fact that the trumped up charge of 'gross misconduct' had been an error, and was in fact only a trumped up charge of 'misconduct' instead.

Wanted to reassure Roz!

Really? Their whole behaviour was completely unreassuring, they must see that!

The faux concern is making my teeth itch.

[re disciplinary meeting]
MR: We agreed to let meeting run as long as necessary. It was clear RA wanted to be heard. We wanted to ensure we were respectful in our questions, to interrogate the three charges as fully and gently as possible.