Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

[nauticant]

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

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

There was live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
R or ERCC: the Respondent, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis

Not that I've seen, and nothing on tra Reddit, either. Odd.

Just combed Reddit, and did yesterday and the only reference I've found via search in the last few days is a conservative American article posted in r/conservative

No TRA mentions that I can find.

I think the TRAs are ignoring in the hope no one covers it in the press. I think there's going to be a Scottish article tomorrow though.

x.com/dalgetysusan/status/1748366532189520348?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Why would a TRA mention it?

They don't pay attention to anything longer than a tweet from their fav follow.

They aren't engaged enough on the subject to hold an in dept conversation beyond 'bigot! You are being transphobic you hateful people. You want to end my existence therefore I'm going to get upset and strop off into a corner. Or I'm going to beat you into submission using my power of authority over you in whatever way Stonewall says is fine.'

It's like being eviscerated on cross examination by your nan.

I wouldn't want to have been cross examined by either of my nans

Oooohhhh. Anyone told the other side this.

Am actually in awe that anyone could lie so blatantly.

I get the impression that ERCC is an organisation that has managed to forget its purpose. It has completely failed to put the needs of its service users front and centre and rather directs its concerns to the wants of its employees.

Imagine contacting ERCC and being told that your counsellor is called 'Graham' or 'David'? How could you possibly move forward with ERCC?

Have just caught up with both threads.

God, AB sounds intensely tedious. Sounds like the kind of colleague who 'says it as I see it' while being ridiculously quick to take offence at any perceived slight. The kind of colleague who'll cc your boss into every email interaction. Or hide their fucking cup/draw sharpie lines on the sugar jar.

ERCC seems to have taken their purpose to be a hotbed of gender ideology rather what they are supposed to be, which is a provider of rape crisis services.

Thanks as always to everyone who contributes on these threads. The TRA's tend to avoid these type of threads (choosing instead to haunt the pronoun/drag/email signature ones) because the idiocy of what they are defending is so clearly laid out. I never thought I would find ET's so fascinating!

What happens if/when Roz wins? Does there need to be a grown up look at how MW has been running the RCC?

I think you could start asking questions of the trustees, the charitable status of the organisation (for failing to stay within it's stated charitable aims) and certainly someone should be sacked/resign for the entire debacle if she wins.

But that's still theoretical and it's entirely possible that the ruling will go the other way. Which would be a travesty purely because of the hypocrisy/lack of consistency and how it would create an abject inability to safeguard/ whistleblow in future.

Place marking for more shitshow reportage tomorrow. Thanks Nauticant.

It was entirely inappropriate that MR was involved with the disciplinary process given her obvious and clearly declared (on twitter) bias.

If you have a conflict of interest as a trustee you are supposed to declare it - MR has not declared her conflict of interest.

The legality of the trustees' behaviour should be looked at.

Absolutely - perfect summary.

I really hope MR suffers some consequences from her quite clear perjury

Thanks so much to everyone who has kept us up to date with this jaw dropping case.

I have time next week and I'd love to be able to watch online. Does anyone have a link please?

Ooh, not tomorrow.

Just caught up.

Thanks to all providing updates and analysis.

Today was certainly interesting.

The focus on protecting indulging staff to the detriment of service users was very clear.

As for MR, the bias was laid bare as was the lack of experience.

The extreme level arrogance that often goes hand in hand with this ideology making worshipers feel they can act in ways that makes them impervious to process, the law and truth was, I feel very evident today.

Email: [email protected]

Ask for

Public access request RAdam v ERCC 4102236/2023

They'll send you a link and code

😁

This is astonishing.

x.com/forwomenscot/status/1748506610178113933?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Well I treated myself to a curry tonight, so I could save time for sitting and reading through the end of the last thread, and where we're up to so far on this one, and it's taken most of the evening. Thank you to everyone who's been contributing snippets from tribunal tweets or their own take on what they've seen so far. I definitely get the impression that MR's evidence hasn't done the defence any favours - what was it that the judge was asking about at the end of the session?

Good question- I wondered that.

Thanks to all who watch and comment. I read the tribunal tweets sections first, then come here for all the added extras, the wtfs, the long pauses, the descriptions of shiftiness or twitchery, the floundering. These threads bring the TT tweets to life (I know they have to be impartial in their reporting, but thank goodness MNetters don't!).

Wasn't it clarified by NC that MR knew of the ruling but could not recall that it was 'Forstater'?

Given MR's 'context' plus the lack of experience as a trustee or being a board member, I can not get past her agreeing to take on the task of the disciplinary.

Governance is derided as red tape but it isn't. Most major scandals have poor governance at their heart.

Well that's vindication for Roz's actions right there. And a bloody big bus!