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

So this part of the ERCC's case is: Protect MW!

frightening isnt it

very heavy sigh from NC

DH is talking around Ms Jones' evidence without engaging in the substance of what it was.

hes trying to get them to not listen to her evidence or give it any weight

but if they do scrutinise it

god, they wouldn't have to if MW had been a witness daft lad

DH saying that Ms Jones' evidence about what MW said was an ambush meaning that ERCC couldn't properly respond to it.

If only there had been a way for ERCC to have shown the tribunal what MW had really meant in the comments they made!

i wonder if the panel are thinking WTF??

that's all he wants to say about the evidence

It's a real head scratcher! 🤔

i went to let the cat out, whats he on about?

the reason why the investigation was expanded is clear other employees raised concerns about the things the claimant was saying at work

Cos they had the right beliefs and didn't ask difficult questions.

issue five on the harrassment claim next

The way the case has gone might give the panel an escape route similar to that taken in the Shahrar Ali case, that there was discrimination and that was on the basis of irregularities around the disciplinary processes. I'd imagine ERCC would see that as a win, so long as other thorny issues raised by the claimant are not really engaged with in the judgment.

an employer must be able to take steps to enforce their policies i think he just said

entitled to operate the trans inclusive policy that it did and does and is entitled to expect their employees whilst at work to conduct themselves consistently with that

claimants conduct at work and the consequence of that conduct on another employee

The argument against that is that the claimant should be able to argue against policies which put the interests of the service users below those of the employees of ERCC, but it would be easy for the panel to say that that's beyond the scope of their powers.

god im bored

Who needs white noise?? 🥱

so his argument seems to be she didn't follow the rules

Firstly if i recall correctly there was no coherent trans inclusive policy, they made it up as they went along.

secondly even if there was at no time was there any evidence that could construed as misconduct on the part of Roz, who merely queried pretty much how to deal with a question from a service user about AB’s name

Thirdly it is apparent that MW egged on AB to complain, hence their lack of presence.

turning to finally constructive dismissal

Only when those policies are lawful