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.

She seems stolid (but not in a good way), inexperienced and is being very careful. One of those people who can remember exactly what they were doing at 7pm when it puts her in a good light, but not a clue about which senior people she was contacting regarding important events.

Probably. But I am board trustee and I know my responsibilities so know the Board should not be wasting money on a case unless they feel they can win

Did she say a company called Worknest was giving the legal advice?
It's based in England. It's one of those general Employment advice HR/Legal set ups.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04382739

@pronounsbundlebundle yes, totally agree, and it was refreshing to hear the witness NJ refuse to go along with that revolting 'she' fawning. We really need to have some self-respect as women.

NC: you were expecting to send a communication that night. MW is being kept informed of the process.

MR: MW had responded to me re RA's contact details. Also I couldn't book a room cos I was outside the organisation so I was asking MW to arrange a room for us to meet in.

My mum worked with a similar company and generally (there were several such situations where employee or other threatened to take them to court) they advised trying to settle. Very risk averse!

Can see why MW chose this one to chair it all...

I'd bet money that ERCC providing a public and clear apology to RA would have got a settlement for a fraction of the amount of money they'll be spending going down the tribunal route.

Very poor excuses for a delay in sending Roz the letter

NC: Letter was run past Worknest on 12 Sept. Can you explain what was going on and not sent until 18 Sept.

MR: Worknest responded by 13th. I realised I didn't have RA's address, or a copy of the letterhead, or a room so I requested those.

NC: Is that the whole explanation of delay? You could have sent room tbc.

MR: Yes, but I wanted to give RA all info. Also I had to do all these things in the evening.

NC: Thos admin details lined up are the whole explanation for the delay.

MR: Those were significant time delays.

NC: So nothing else going on?

MR: No

The 'I was very busy' excuse. Doing these things in the evenings. Didn't have RA's address or headed paper or a room booked.

Nah, they know the process is the punishment for women - it's all about harming the woman who wants to acknowledge the reality of biology and its importance for safeguarding.

Even if they have no chance of winning, they'd rather the woman be put through the stress and delays of a court case. That's the point. The courts are used to abuse.

It would be hilarious if it didn't affect women so badly (because let's face it, most of us just shut up rather than go through something like this) because the original complaint about whatever the woman's said is so innocuous (usually biological facts or safeguarding concerns) in relation to the massive harms to finances and wellbeing visited upon the women. And ultimately there's no real recourse even if they win.

The women whose lives and mental health are shattered have to go through worse to win a court case.

It's so opposite to every single safeguarding training I've attended (you should feel free to speak up!). Such an abuse of power.

They're basically admitting all I've written by the admission that they failed to have training on Forstater - so ignoring the law and inclusion of biological realists in their procedures.

Isn't asking for and giving out RA's private contact details a breach of GDPR?

Yes, it's abuse of public funds too to take unwinnable court cases forward to punish a woman.

NC: RA wrote asking you c charges of gross misconduct, to explain the basis of these. You must have known she was desperately worried going to lose job.

MR: Yes

NC: you send brief holding response. Did you know she'd gone off sick?

MR: No. I knew when I got an out of office email from RA.

The gross misconduct change. This is going to be interesting.

Bullshit. It she was confident that the advice she had received was correct in the first place, why seek further advice at all?

And back to administrative error

NC re letter reissued with correction: You said to DH there had been a change of mind after RA queried charge gone to gross misconduct.

MR: Letter was sent seeking guidance on whether we were correct. We were advised we were correct. After RA we asked for further advice and letter changed on that advice.

NC: Why change?

MR: I was told there was an admin error.

NC: No - this is change of mind.

MR: The admin error was not in the ERCC.

Oooh 'NC: this was not an administrative error, it was a change of mind"

Yep, everyone can see this!

!! 'The administrative error was not in the RCC!'

Charges?

Do they think they're the police!

Witness blames the advice she received. Long pause. 'The admin error was not in the ERCC. '

NC: I suggest it wasn't anyone's admin error. Wanted to go through with gross misconduct and dismiss claimant. But it was a loss of nerve.

MR: That's not true.

So have I got this right: in Scotland, some people believe it's a breach of privacy to state someone's sex BUT it's quite acceptable, nay - required, to state your private address in an online court hearing?

WTF?