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

Wouldn't discuss the biological sex of any of their staff with service user

DH: Your email to RA, 30/3/23. Included in chain email RA to Townsend. Townsend sent email to KT to deal with.

DH you refer to return to work plan

KT we would meet and plan how to support worker back into work. Changes/support needed in role, phased return. Agreed between parties.

KT I was hoping RA would come back to work. Plans were in place for return. We had rooms allocated to RA so no logistical barrier. Apart from that to be discussed with RA.

DH If su not content to be passed through line manager or slt.

KT LM or slt would get in touch with su to discuss how can support them / engage in service

DH you said there had been a change in approach in some matters, incl an initial meeting with su. Has anything been done re grappling with issue of gi of a particular sw and any concerns of su re that.

KT one of things that has changed, the initial meeting 1-2-1 opportunity to discuss service, majority of sw are women but we have some nb members of staff but wouldn't discuss bio sex or gender history of any staff.

'a woman-identifying support worker'. Give me strength!

If wanted a woman identifying member of staff wouldn't allocate them an NB one

It never ceases to amaze me how some people get the jobs and roles they do because they seem to have very poor memories or don't know shit about fuck.

@LarkLane I'm doing OK thanks for asking. Enjoying my bit of early retirement although I've had no power since yesterday and the donkies are a bit spooked by the generator and keep shouting at it which is doing my head in.

DH -- and if su indicate that a particular gi of a sw, or not have a sw of a particular gi, how accommodated.

KT if su wanted woman-identifying su we wouldn't allocate to nb-iding member of staff

The most alarming things coming out of this are not directly related to the claim I expect.

Why have otherwise intelligent people deliberately trained their own brains to forget that service users will be interested in what sex the counseller is, and instead imagine that service users will be interested in how the counseller sees themself in relation to gender?? Why did they deliberately set out to forget important things and create false knowledge like this? In the service of a small number of staff at the organisation, completely against the interests of the women they serve? So bad.

Dedicated time for a woman only space on a Tuesday!

KM: If a service user wanted a woman-identifying support worker we would not assign them to a non-binary member of staff.

That elegantly steps around any acknowledgement of a service user being able to request a female person. Woman-identifying can mean MW.

If the service user wanted a female IDENTIFING member of staff, we wouldn't put them with an NB person.

FFS so they would put with a transwoman?

So it's now on the record that the 'hate emails' folder had a name change.

How realiable is that claim if the witness does not know who changed the name or what it is now called?

NC should have a field day with that on cross examination

DH what provision for woman-only space

KT we have dedicated time on a Tuesday. Ensure only women are supported about that time [she may be talking c su s here, not staff]

DH have you been aware of su not wanting nb support worker

KT have had su s saying prefer woman sw

[god, the fudging here. And the (male) elephant in the room]

He is finished

But ‘woman - identifying’ could (does) include people that most people would call men. Can a service user request no men? (I do realise this is sort of the point of the whole case…)

That's the end of KM's evidence in chief. Now it's NC to cross-examine.

NC - you're part in this is pretty minor isn't it

NC: You're the only staff member at centre called to give evidence.

KT yes

NC you didn't instigate investigation, conduct it or report on it. Your part in this is pretty minor

KT yes

Ahh, NC pointing out that anyone with a major role has not been put forward by ERCC and KM acknowledges she's a bit player.

NC Your part in this is pretty minor isn't it. 😂

She is the ONLY paid member of staff giving evidence

Why??

Oh Christ bundle issues

Because ERCC withheld anyone who could provide useful evidence Appalonia. They don't want the full story to be told the panel by people who know what happened.

@Boiledbeetle Don't

NC taking about an email sent internally about the witnesses giving evidence