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

MR: RA proposed a response which inc what RA had been told what not to do. Could have approached line manager privately for advice.

NC: But that's what she did do. Copying in AB because it involved AB

MR: AB did not wish to be discussing their name change.

NC: So what turned this from proper q to misconduct was that she'd copied AB.

MR: Because she inc info she was instructed not to include

NC: But she wasn't giving info to a service user, so not disobeying instruction.

MR: She was sharing info and copying in AB when AB explicitly didn't want to be inc in discussions re AB's name change. RA was challenging instructions.

NC: Is challenging instructions gross misconduct?

MR: No

How many witnesses at ETs have there already been having to work through the argument on the stand and who end up looking like idiots?

I've yet to see one person come off even slightly well. Just shows how little critical thinking is going on.

Nominating for understatement of the decade.

I hope that works @Brefugee ? I'm subscribed, so I'm not sure if it's clear for you to read? (Also I'm pretty shit technically).

MR: RA posted in a forum and put AB in a difficult position.

NC: But the forum was all people who knew what sex AB was cos they knew AB. All members of same team.

MR: I believe so. But salient point was instruction not to inc AB in discussions re name change.

NC: So what should she have done next after getting enquiry from service user.

MR: Spoken to line manager in confidence.

NC: What should she have done if fully understood understood.

MR: Should have told service user AB nb and not a man

NC really pinning this witness down.

Re the Forstater question, surely the outside lawyerly/HR org would know about this and would have advised them?

NC: Okay if that was answer, even though service user may well know that ERCC purports to be a woman only org and its Chief exec is known to be a TiM.

MR: SU could have asked further qs

NC: If Su asks if worker is physically male or female, cos not feel safe with a man, how would ERCC have answered that q?

MR: Would've been appropriate to put that question further up org and have an internal conversation and ask individual support worker about what they would like to say .

So AB didn't want to be part of any discussions about this - why? Does it distress AB? Presumably not as much as it distresses rape victims to have to check what the sex of their support worker is

NC: to docs, where SU asks if AB is a man or a woman, cos uncomfortable talking with a man. Then email from RA - not sure how you would want me to respond. Can I get some guidance. My exp is many ways transperson would respond. My instinct is to reply AB is AFAB who now ids as nb. That's the email RA was disciplined for. Reading again, it's perfectly reasonable and respectful.

NC: Whole team needed to know how to situation now that AB has a male name and ids as NB cos they're going to be asked.

MR: I understood that this had been discussed before and was a repeated discussion. I think that meant that if there had been any doubt should have been raised in confidence with line manager rather than with team.

I’ve not been watching long but this witness has misgendered the NB staff member several times. Which, IMO, shows how stupid this situation is.

The whole thing is like an obstacle course where at any stage you can potentially slip up and find your self in deep doo-doo. That applies to members of staff and service users. There is only one possible way through the obstacle course and you can only get to the end if you believe that TWAW.

MR uses AB's new male name. Please don't, says someone.

Did she just out AB? And those no responses are very stroppy!

Oh dear witness using AB's first name rather than initials - is that gross misconduct?

Oops slip of the tongue there :O

AB sounds hideously tedious to work with.

NC: How can mentioning something that everyone knows about AB is a bad thing in itself.

MR: AB had asked not to be involved in the conversations.

[How can these people function in the workplace? Oh, wait...]

looks as though i can read it. Thank you.

NC: 2nd change re disclosing individual's gender journey on public forum. It wasn't public, but private to the team

MR: Public = more than one person

Ooh we’re coming onto the GDPR angle now.

NC: reads from policy what sensitive personal data is - list.

NC: It doesn't mention sex under that heading.

MR: Not explicitly, but this was part of physical health.

Witness says the data is in the Trans Inclusion Policy. (But not GDDR)

The table you were shown earlier today and that you said you had never seen before.

AB sounds tedious. I wouldn't work with them and require there to always be a 3rd person present if i had to.

She cld have said Ab was NB and not a man. ANd the user cld req a different worker if uncomfortabel

(from the tweets). This is utterly batshit. So a SU asks "it will be a woman?" and the answer could have been "it will be someone who was born a woman but is now non-binary. So yes, a woman but you have to pretend they aren't. Heads up - this non-man/non-woman uses a male name. practice using they/them so you don't cause them to have a meltdown"

What if AB had been AMAB (urgh)? how would the reply go then?