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

Witness is waffling

NC 60-year old woman turned away and not signposted to Beira's place.

KM Don't know c that or if it happened.

NC Hypothetical then. Would that happen now.

KM Majority of women in our support groups have had support from ercc already. We do get some direct referrals. We would meet with them to assess whether they were in the right space for that kind of support.

Slight fuck up over emails by NC

NC nobody gave Roz the assurances she sought (about the transphobic thing i think)

I don't know

We have an admin error with misconduct v gross misconduct
We have an error about an apology
We have a total lack of understanding of section 9 of the Equality Act (and indeed how NB don't actually have any legally recognised status)
We have a total disregard of how the Equality Act is about balancing rights and sex based rights are enshrined into law
We have a total absence of policy on sex/gender/transphobia
We have clear evidence of different employees having been treated in totally different ways - one favourably and one being bullied.
We have a total disregard for work place bullying
We have a senior manager who seems to be at the heart of all this and therefore is a key witness who mysterious isn't giving any evidence.
We have managers without counselling training or experience counselling vulnerable service users
We have the gender identity egos of staff put over and above the sex based concerns of vulnerable service users, who instead get filed under 'hate' and not deemed worthy of help, assistance nor reassurance.
We have staff at a charity for rape unaware of the motives and nuance of sex based violence.
When asked if disciplinary proceedings should be taken if the court finds that there is a problem with the conduct of a senior manager, theres just a shrug and dismissal of the mere possibility of that.

Have I missed anything else about JUST how unprofessional and unfit for purpose this charity is and how there are some very serious issues with senior management?

NC RA email to KimT. Neither you nor anyone else gave RA the assurance she sought that no one thought she was transphobic.

KM Don't know. You'd have to ask one of the other witnesses that. I wasn't involved.*
*[exactly the problem, my dear]

Break for lunch back at 2 pm

Wasn't expecting Roz to resign

CEO who acts as a counsellor who has absoluetely no experience or training in counselling

As mentioned above, MW has updated personal website to include a Diploma in CBT from this organisation. I don't know if that covers the level of counselling, qualification standard, or degree of expertise that one might typically expect from a RCC.

https://www.centreoftherapy.org/cbt-diplomas

NC has 2 more section and will continue into the afternoon. DH has the witness statements for the remaining witnesses. NC expects to get onto the next witness today. Resuming at 2pm.

Oh yes, I need to add this to the list:

Poor procedures, note taking and general practice at disciplinaries.

When you put it like that!!!!

Bloody hell. It's horrific isn't it!

This is a tribunal about discrimination but one aspect which hasn't been looked at and won't under this is - are we even sure that the women that they are supporting, especially in any group sessions, ARE even women?

It doesn't seem clear to me that they could be trusted to keep groups seperate, and therefore not keep vulnerable women safe from males who might access the service just to get into the group sessions by saying they are women who have been sexually assaulted. It is a massive blind spot.

Good point - they really don't know how to do safeguarding at all.

I bet Isla Bryson might like to join one of their groups, complete with pink leggings.

It's odd that qualification has only just come to light. You'd think it would be a prominent part of the CV of someone in MW's position. Displayed front and centre given it has much more relevance than the hospitality qualification.

I think that the Judge and Panel members are going to take really dim views of the Investigation, Discipline and Grievance procedures.

No attempt to advise claimant of the case against her but hauled into Star Chamber. No time limits for stages of the process seem to exist nor adhered to. Welfare of staff members strikingly different. No adequate training of those running the place. A CEO allowed to interfere in ongoing processes with a view to swaying the outcome.

Not forgetting an "admin error" in the giving of legal advice which has now been referred to by the witness as being "given the wrong advice".

Along wih McCarthyism, see also Entryism, a favoured TRA tactic.
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/entryism/

I think that the Judge and Panel members are going to take really dim views of the Investigation, Discipline and Grievance procedures.

Hopefully.

The question then becomes what happens to the senior manager who should have been responsible for these being done correctly. What actions will be taken to remedy the situation and by whom?

Should certain staff remain in position?

Interesting question given the response from the witness already on this...

...is there someone who can not be questioned nor challenged?

Interesting that there is nothing on X about this ET or Jo's judgement from the usual suspects, including RMW. Just silence.

Oh, RMW has been muttering away: https://twitter.com/moira_robin/status/1749549339184132421

Yes I think that's what they think they are doing.

If a service user says 'I want a counseller who was born female' they will provide that. But they will not actually tell her this. Their policy means they can't say 'the counseller will definitely be female'. Once she's arrived at the appointment the counseller can tell her but that will be up to them. This is what they have chosen. I wish it was surprising.

Even within their own belief system surely they could have a list of counsellers who don't mind that SU's are assured that they are female. That it's done carefully so no one is 'outed' as a bio female against their will (!!!!) or pressured into being on the list, but if that's what a woman needs then they can give that assurance.

It's all completely mad, but even within their own belief system rhet are choosing an unnecessarily cruel and gaslighting route imo.

OhBuggerandArse · Today 13:38

Oh, RMW has been muttering away:

It seems that Bob has blocked me now. That'll teach me to point out that them was misrepresenting the law, a couple of months ago.

I do think that should I ever return to the UK and have to make a living, I'll do bundles for court cases, I'm good at putting things into chronological order.

I'll save the court system a bloody fortune, the time spent faffing about looking for this paper and that paper and the one under the glasses case.

But didn't KM previously say she believes that MW is biologically female (or was it biologically a woman)?

So nothing of substance apart from a bit of self promotion?
No surprise there then.

Have a look on Twitter for bbcwomanshour. Trans activist Twitter is having a fit.