Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #4

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gender 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 or KT: 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): 22-23 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Miren Sagues (MS): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katie Horburgh (KH): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)

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
Thread #3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990903-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-3

Must be a shock for pp to realise real life isn't like Twitter

if tw is a woman than a nb person can't be whether they're a vulva haver or not.

I do see what you meant Sisterpita, it's one thing to be an effective advocate but it would be frustrating if you have to undermine those relevant skills with ideological nonsense that cannot be argued logically and consistently.

NC is wonderfully setting out how MW was behaving but god it is so painful in real time.

Could a GC employee say 'I'm not going to trans inclusive training because I'm too scared'? Or again, is that just for MW and AB?

NC asking if she knows why MW not there answering these questions

MW not here, do you know why?

No, she wasn't part of the investigation

if tw is a woman than a nb person can't be whether they're a vulva haver or not.

As I said on an earlier thread, it's completely cake and eat it. If they operate on a "gender identity" basis, AB shouldn't be there as she "isn't a woman".

NC MW is seeing possibility of dissent in forthcoming meeting c trans issues

MS MW and AB say they are dreading the training

NC MW treats prospect of qs and dissent re ercc trans incl policy as source of trauma.

NC talking calmly and answering qs on this subject is something to be dreaded.

MS no. but talking c gc belief and ercc belief is difficult conversation to have.

NC But MW is CEO. Difficult conversations and dealing calmly is core part of CEO job

MS acknowledging how AB feels

NC not just that. MW saying to Ab I'm scared too and I won't go. Dreadful example to set to junior employee.

NC we see same inability to counter dissent in MW non appearance at this tribunal. Do you know why not here?

MS no. Not about MW. About RA behaviour to AB. MW not part of the invest so why would MW be here?

Think about how much of NC case is about how hopeless (I'm being kind here) MW is as a CEO.

MS claims this car crash over MW is just because MW is transwoman.

I've finally caught up.

Have we established who put the "gross misconduct" words and an explanatory paragraph "by mistake" into the letter? MS blamed an intern (at ERCC or at Worknest) who has hitherto not been mentioned.

Presumably there are a fair few folk at Worknest scanning through Mumsnet/Tribunal Tweets/observing. I would be mighty miffed if my firm's reputation was being dragged through the manure.

Many thanks to all you speedy typists

Into the fact that Roz legal suggested that MW was deeply involved in this and should appear

Did you ask MW to come and give evidence?

No

NC many questions about why is MW not here to give answers, or Nico. Why?
Much meaningless waffle in reply as you would expect.

NC You are on the board. You know RA's lawyers said MW deeply involved in this and should be here to give evidence.

MS Not involved in that. We were talking to nico

NC Nico not here either. Did you ask MW to give evidence?

MS no

As I count, we're just shy of 100 watchers of the stream.

is it too late to join? when you email them do they let you in straight away? or is it for the next day?

As soon as the clerk sees it, not long usually

@BlessedKali I got the link within 20 minutes so worth asking

Are Roz's legal team not able to call MW as a witness?

I think you could request and might get a response in time to catch some of the afternoon session BlessedKali.

Witness just acknowledged MW was biased that's why MW was removed from the investigation.

NC c grievance. MS's letter doesn't deal with the complaint, pt 10, about MW jumping to conclusion that RA at fault and encouraging AB to be upset and throwing fuel on the fire.

MS Don't agree. RA thinks MW biased. Yes, MW was biased which was why she was removed from the investigation. MW acknowledged herself that what mattered was what the invest found.

@nauticant yes, its not like I wasn’t there or I didn’t do that, it’s the fact they are trying to use an ideology that most witnesses haven’t thought about beyond TWAW/TMAM and anything else is transphobic.

Once you ask even basic questions it all falls apart as they have not critically assessed it and so they cannot conceptualise there may be another point of view that isn’t transphobic.

No. Each side pick their own witnesses.