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

YET

She sounds like she's trying very hard to sound confident and competent, as if in a job interview.

I can pick that apart merely by going to the most recent item in my clipboard

"Our service is open to anyone who self identifies as a woman, trans woman, trans man or non-binary person."

conflicts with

"Objects shall be: 5.1 to relieve the distress of women, men, boys and girls"

So quite apart from the current mess, they already appear to be failing to meet their stated function.

"Not the only piece of advice."

Wonder if anyone other than worknest gave advice?

Witnesses aren’t allowed to watch proceedings though?

EDITED: Sorry, just seen someone else has pointed that out.

Yes!!

"Can you clarify what you're asking me, please?" Argh, she's waving a twig at the Olympic-level duellist...

KH can you clarify what you are asking me, please? [sounds like she has been practised]

I think she is getting quieter already

Lots of water drinking

argh I need to do school runs

this is going to be a good one

Witness trying to come across as very assured in how she carried out her investigation and that everything was done properly.

I need to pay more attention, can't see where we're going with these questions

KH We looked at fairness of decision. I looked at was process fair and did I agree with the outcome.

NC you quote policy and say I used these three options and decided to waive stage 1 warning.

KH that's the decision re action. My letter outlined my rationale for the decision. I offered to explain decision in person but RA didn't take me up on that

Is this witness the Student Union Sabbatical Officer trustee?

I'm not sure where NC is going with this either

I wish KH would allow NC to speak before she speaks instead of sprinkling NC's questions with "correct"s and "uhuh"s

NC catching up witness as to what is known in court

KH beginning to falter here.

"The nature of the relationship between MW and her relative is what excuses MW's disclosure" - what the fuck? NC rightly questioning what relationship could possibly excuse that disclosure.

Witness trying to justify MW disclosing about family member sexual assault

KH thinks that if MW wants something, well, that takes priority.

MW can do no wrong.

Apparently it was within MW's rights to make that disclosure, because of the nature of the relationship. Although in general ERCC is very very keen on confidentiality. 🙄