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

Has the bingo card had dog whistle yet?

Because Roz dared to put the feelings of service users first she was basically labelled a Terf wasn't she for bringing up anything trans related that may be a issue for some service users.

'underlying transphobia'

.Which is? What does that mean?

Hinted that biology might exist and be needed by service users?
That the service users needs might possibly take priority over the needs of politics and important people?

What purpose do females who identify as trans or NB serve for males?

They are useful tools to say that we are being inclusive and it happens to females too when it's a male speaking for them and thus proving a point for a male and for the benefit of a male and it's usually riddled with sexism.

The lack of agency here is troubling in itself.

NC: (Im paraphrasing) What is the difference between expressing views and behaviour?

How can NA express her views without it being counted as behaviour?

MR: looooooooooong silence. Followed by an example which seems to suggest what makes the difference is whether anyone gets upset by what you've said.

So back to the "you can hold views but can't express them"

And why is Nico not giving evidence since they seem to have played a key role - I guess we will never know, but again the panel can draw their own conclusions

MR: It wasn't her expression of views but was behaviour that was making people uncomfortable and sometimes quite distressed. Sometimes behaviour in safe spaces is interpreted in a way, and the people receiving the behaviour were hurt and distressed.

NC: ERCC has become an environment in which people believe that others have to believe what they believe and if other people express dissenting belief is felt by some people working in the environment as bullying and frightening .

MR: Not my experience of ercc.

NC: What is it in expressing those views that counts in your mind as behaviour

MR: As a woman I have experienced men behaving toward me in way I find upsetting. Hypotheticals - asking a question to find an answer or in a way to cause upset.

NC: But no egs in investigation report talk c behaviour in that sense, just views.

MR: I read it as description of behaviour

Place mark

I wonder if ERCC's legal team had a good look at the potential witnesses and realised they just couldn't call some of them - either they were not mentally strong enough or they were just too batshit

NC goes to RA comments on the effect of all this on her.

MR: When someone being investigated for her behaviour it's going to be difficult and upsetting. [Lots of mentions by MR of 'behaviour' now.]

any second now: love the sinner, hate the sin

NC reads email with AB's new name again. Everyone's doing this - misgendering and outing people. Just shows how impossible the pressure this puts on people to ignore the evidence of eyes and ears and to remember what they are being asked to do by others, at different stages.

And MR uses AB's new name again. Might just be quicker and easier to call AB that...

You can tell they are tired now AB is getting outed left right and centre

Yes I think MR has got the memo now that punishing someone for their legal beliefs is .....illegal

Is a good example of the problems with compelled speech. It's hard work and requires additional concentration which takes its toll!

I trust that witness is going to be in line for a massive disciplinary on her return to work from this.

NC reads RA's conciliatory email to AB

MR: I feel comfortable telling tribunal that this was an unwelcome email (RA to AB) and leading into conversation that [name again] AB said didn't want to have.

NC: do you regard email as bullying and harassment .

MR: I regarded email overall as part of constituting bullying and harassment

I think the witness is a board member not staff?

Thank you for the commentary.

ERCC submission to the consultation on the GRR bill www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-analysis/2021/08/organisation-responses-to-gender-recognition-consultation-scotland-a-g/documents/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/govscot%3Adocument/Edinburgh%2BRape%2BCrisis%2BCentre.pdf

If I remember rightly she is a volunteer, unpaid. She must really have reasons for wanting to support MW/ercc in its present form.

NC reads an email to AB from RA which is as kind and apologetic and empathetic as possible. With regret, sadness and warmth.

so RA sent an email to AB to say "soz for making this uncomfortable" and AB has a snit because RA shouldn't be contacting AB but nobody had bothered to tell RA that?

This place is utterly bonkers. I get shit emails that i don't want (at work) all the sodding time. I'm going to put an automatic reply saying only send emails with pictures of kittens everything to do with my actual job triggers me.

I keep getting kicked out so will rely on the notes here to keep me updated

I'm back in the waiting room!