Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #5

[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: 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
Thread #4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4991883-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4

I think he's trying to bore the panel into submission

Delete the final full stop @Justabaker:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5041989-keeping-up-the-fight

NCs typing is literally the most interesting thing going on it that room right now

Oh fuck me he's relying on SA vs the Green Party. A political party has the right to adopt specific policies.

I think he is saying that if you don't share an organisation's views then they don't have to employ you.

Surely that's not a precedent setting decision anyway

Anyone having visions of Father Ted in the lingerie department asking for the priest with the most boring voice?

I remember IO's oral submissions at Allison's tribunal, and I couldn't keep track of what she was saying at all.
It seemed like a stream of consciousness.

She clearly didn't believe a word of it either.

Do they get special training on how to sound as mind numbingly boring as possible?

😂

kill me. kill me now!
aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Which (in my view) is fair enough. But (also in my own view) whether an organisation can put an employee through a nasty disciplinary process for asking reasonable questions is a different matter.

Hmm. Not sure why. It's still there if you look for it manually.

It's because the link has a full stop at the end.

To be more precise, the underlying URL has a full stop, that isn't present in the text of the link.

A political party has the right to adopt specific policies.

From what I read it was also about him being a spokesperson for the party, not an ordinary member. And the loss for the Green Party was because they hadn't followed a fair and reasonable disciplinary process to remove him. Just like it appears that ERCC didn't in this case.

hes finished wittering about the law and wants to move onto the evidence

going to pause for lunch

back at 2pm

Break till 2pm. Get your nap in before DH resumes.

Thats not true.

They don't have to employ you, but it doesn't mean they aren't being discriminatory and they aren't exposing themselves to a situation where they are neglecting their statutory duties and responsibilities if they only employ people who believe certain things.

Missed the last ten minutes cleaning up dog sick. More exciting but not quite what I had in mind.

Surely a political party is very different from ERCC. A political party is specifically about people's opinions. ERCC is not.

Thanks everyone. Just caught up.
NC on fire from reading your posts.

A political party can not have members who don't agree with its policies but an employer can't refuse to hire people because of their legally held beliefs. If that is his argument he's on a loser surely!

"My work place culture believes that only the women should answer the phone. If you don't like this, we don't have to employ you".

Good luck with that mate.

And this case is essentially about misognyistic beliefs in the workplace which disregard the needs and legal protections for women.

Is he going to say that if service users don't like gender identity beliefs and believe they have a right to privacy and dignity away from men they should fuck off somewhere else? Really?

COME ON.

Mr. H attempting to equate a political party with a rape crisis centre is really scraping the legal barrel.