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

Witness confirms that MW told her MW was discussing something else with AB when AB received the email from Roz

I was going to suggest that! And say something like if I misgender somebody or use the wrong name, please don't interrupt me, as the medical aspects of the menopause will mean I will lose my thread and become distressed.

Please email me afterwards with any misgendering or deadnaming incidents, with the time it happened and describing the event so I can identify them. And I will review it and work on it.

Remove their power and make them do all the work. It would be interesting to see how many of them bother.

NC talking about Document - grievance decision

NC just said AB's first name by mistake. Not going to repeat it.
And she just did it again while I was typing.

I'm going to struggle with this today,

I was going to suggest that! And say something like if I misgender somebody or use the wrong name, please don't interrupt me, as the medical aspects of the menopause will mean I will lose my thread and become distressed.

Please email me afterwards with any misgendering or deadnaming incidents, with the time it happened and describing the event so I can identify them. And I will review it and work on it.

Remove their power and make them do all the work. It would be interesting to see how many of them bother.

Perfect.

NC [reads from statement] MW says that by coincidence MW happens to be on phone with AB when AB received email from RA and MW able to offer AB support at this distressing moment.

[NC deadnaming AB over and over. Says sorry and will remember.]

It's not a deadname, it is the name AB chose to use as a non-binary person which is usually associated with men. But AB is not supposed to be named in the discussions - it just shows how hard it is to remember things

So MW was already talking to AB about her name change. FFS

The name will be written all over whatever correspondence, minutes etc she is reading from. It's easy to slip up, as KM also did.

Which means MW statement that they were talking about something else was a lie. But og course MW can't be asked as MW is not going to be a witness!

At least this witness is more forthcoming than KM was

So I would imagine AB was already upset as MW had "ambushed" them with the telephone conversation.

NC [reads from email MW to AB] It's clear that MW and AB have spoken and MW is following up from that conversation.

[MS reading doc]

NC So email in entirety, it's clear that purpose of the MW/AB phone call was to discuss how to approach su qs re AB's id.

MS Talking about conversation and actions MW will take

NC Reason MW wanted to talk to AB was c service user qs on AB's id

MS They weren't talking about RA's email

NC No, cos that email hadn't actually yet been sent. MW is being misleading. The truth is AB and MW already having conversation about the issue when the email came in.

MS I disagree.

NC seems to be stating that MW says MW was not involved in disciplinary process but the witness seems to state something different in the paperwork and was talking to MW about it.

This witness is quite difficult to understand, and she doesn't seem to always understand what NC is asking .

I think I remember MW sent a following up email apologising for the triggering telephone call.

Does anyone else recall?

NC - questiong all around evidence of MW co-ordinating investigation despite ERCC evidence claiming to tribunal MW wasn't involved.
NC - is establishing that MW's fingerprints are all over the investigation.

It's got to be hard to mangle the language to hide what you mean when the language you are speaking in isn't your first language

I find it incredible that a bunch of people who hear about significant trauma and real violence as a daily part of their job are so hyperbolic about the tiniest of perceived word transgressions.

Everything I've read on these threads suggests they've turned ERCC into real life Reddit style hug box for fragile and self absorbed people. The service users seem completely secondary to their need for batshit internal drama.

Yes as an example of how differently AB was treated compared to RA

NC Why was MW involved. Why not handled by Nico who was doing the investigation.

MS That's a good point.

[MS goes on to say she was v new to the board and still working out how things work.]

This witness is quite difficult to understand, and she doesn't seem to always understand what NC is asking .

Cynical people might suggest that's why she's up on the stand.

Witness is saying it was Nico that was running things

NC - do you agree with me at all that MW was communicating about investigation when it would have been better if MW had not been involved at all?