Another GC employment tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #3

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gener Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
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

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
[more to follow]

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2

@GCITC thank you, I'm going to try and clear the decks

An error you say???

Not watching, so thank you for all the comments.

My gut is saying that AB is revelling in the attention, especially from MW. Likely both were gagging for an excuse to have a go at Roz. AB was likely still upset because a) that got her all the attention and sympathy b) the witch hadn't been burnt yet.

They would chop their tongues out (literal violence) rather than apologise, probably.

Elaine Miller and Bev Jackson are both watching, just had quick look at watchers

It does make you wonder how many GC cases might have settled before an ET claim was filed by a claimant, and whether we'll ever hear about them.

Roz sends email before return to work with three questions

All this nonsense about admin errors and confusion over who was to apologise: LIES

Reasonable questions - but one was asking MW not to say RA was transphobic so I imagine that may explain why they didn't settle in advance

And Marion and Trina from For women Scotland

The key issue with counselling is trust. Trust between a counsellor and the patient.

So you want to start from a point of trust. If someone has a concern about sex, you don't disregard that or lie about it because it undermines trust.

If you were a raped woman who asked about sex and then was confronted with a male, you wouldn't ask to change counsellor. There's every chance you'd run or freeze because of a fear response.

And you probably wouldn't put yourself in that situation again. You'd be a no show. At best you'd probably turn up and go silent but certainly not engage fully.

You certainly wouldn't trust and that completely undermines the counselling process, because without trust you have nothing.

Even if we don't go as far as saying its abusive, its certainly unprofessional because it lacks an understanding of the basics underlying counselling.

But then given the service has a CEO who acts as a counsellor who has absoluetely no experience or training in counselling, that hardly a surprise is it?

They only investigate when they have already decided the outcome?

Why should a survivor of rape have to meet with someone to discuss why they want to know the biological sex of their counsellor - the important person in this relationship is not the counsellor

NC asking what witness would respond if service user wanted further info about the sex of the support worker

Witness would meet and see if could help without disclosing gender history or biological sex.

So bloody convoluted to hide that you will employ men who claim to be women.

Are we thinking 'supportive and open dialogue' = re-education here.

ACTUAL 'supportive and open dialogue' would be 'yes I understand that you want a counsellor of the same biological sex as you, not the same 'gender' and I will ensure that is the case and respect your belief that 'woman' means XX genetics' No need to disclose anything about anyone.

NC RA still asking for guidance on how to deal with service users who are asking for bio sex of sw rather than gi. This was given to you to deal.

KM not sure exactly who involved, but came to me and I replied directly to RA.

NC your instruction is given. If service user not content with we don't employ men - cos wants to know c sex not gi - and if then referred to you, you wouldn't tell c gi and that's all the assurance you're going to get.

KM I would meet with su to discuss their concerns. To lay out our position and see if there was any way to sort it without disclosing anyone's gi history or bio sex.

Gaslighting!

Woah - go NC! Pointing out that ERCC are gaslighting a vulnerable group

Back to witness not agreeing with statements

Is 'I don't agree' on the bingo card?

As in mandatory tequila shot if said?

I am hoping that NC throws in an 'would you agree that the earth is not flat and that grass is green' to just see if she answers 'I would not agree with that'.

NC I suggest that in telling RA she must tell a su that ercc doesn't employ men, you are making RA join in ercc's gaslighting of its vulnerable client group.

KM don't agree

NC An employee with a functioning conscience couldn't tolerate that.

KM Don't agree.

Victim turned away from service as told unsuitable, witness doesn't know

Onto woman in 60s who ended up at Beiras place, she was turned away do you accept that was what happened.

Witness I don't know so can't say if that happened

Oh, it looks like a service user in her 60s was turned away for wrongthink by ERCC and only by chance did she learn about the existence of Beira's Place.