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

yikes

Back to trans inclusion meeting email from M MW to AB about not going as to difficult

NC A CEO needs to be able to have calm conversations c difficult subjects?

KH yes

NC Please read... MW in that email is modelling to AB extreme fragility in dreading trans incl meeting.

KH no

NC reasonable for CEO to say not going to attend cos too difficult

KH it's fair for a tw to make her own decision c spaces she feels safe in

"I can't answer to Mridul" - nope, because Mridul ISN'T HERE.

The CEO should be mentally strong enough to put up with a slightly uncomfortable training session ffs.

@ickky To be fair, they also have an article about the forstater judgement.

Where is that?

NC That email and decision to swerve meeting - CEO needs to have calm and rational conversation c difficult subject. It's a refusal to engage with others in org, and encouragement for junior members of staff to follow suit. Is this what you expect from a CEO

KH Don't agree. Training session not going to be only space for that conversation. You can see from the docs there were other opportunities.

If it was not clear what Roz's views were, what was the purpose of the discliplinary process? What was it trying to establish / what were its aims?

Either it found her to be transphobic or it didn't. If it didn't find her transphobic, what were Roz's aims - why was she asking these questions? If she was asking these questions, what were their aims?

If it did find her transphobic, what evidence was there and what was the aim of the discipliniary process?

OR was the disciplinary process the punishment and was the aim to silence her and to tell her to stop asking difficult questions they didn't want to answer?

KH need to look after mental health of our staff and our service users

https://worknest.com/blog/dismissing-employees-for-offensive-beliefs-what-can-we-learn-from-the-forstater-decision/

Note the title!

This witness has had the occasional wobble but she recovers very well.

I may not agree with a word that comes out of her mind and mouth but I'm impressed with how she is handling this.

...in that order.

Or to paraphrase my point when this is put into context of her comment of "in an investigation of discriminatory views" - was it the Spanish Inquistion?

It's worth highlighting - for any non-Scots following - that ERCC has strong political connections. Maggie Chapman (previous CEO of ERCC) is a Green MSP and vociferous supporter of self-id. MW was a member of the SNP and left to the join the Greens (whether because they wouldn't give MW a leadership role as per Wikipedia, or because the SNP didn't agree it was fine for a transwoman to internally examine a rape victim as per upthread... )

The Scottish Greens are even more extremely TWAW than SNP, and the SNP depend on the Greens to govern. The Scottish government has called on organsations incuding SRC/ERCC to give input on whether self-id affects vulnerable women's rights - well really to assure them that it doesn't.

Scotland has a much smaller population than England, ERCC is long established and influential charity, and Edinburgh itself is a small city so ERCC's political connections carry more influence than they might in England.

The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to have ignored or been unaware of just how influential ERCC is when it decided not to intervene in MW's appointment. Or maybe EHRC did know and wimped out.

Have been following this for days, and you are all amazing. And (as a charity trustee myself) I wandered over to the ERCC website to find out more about their team. Can't find that, but did find this, on their vision, mission and values page:

We work to empower survivors by honouring their views, supporting them to be independent and make informed choices about their healing journey.

honouring their views????

I am still boggling

Going back to the 'admin error' of the gross misconduct letter - if we are being generous, we could assume that Worknest has 2 template letters (1 for misconduct and 1 for gross misconduct) and the apprentice used the wrong one. That would be a process error that could reasonably occur.

However.

An apprentice should surely have supervision, and the letter should have been checked before sending to the client.

When ERC received it, they should have checked it before sending it to RA. And gone back to WN to say, ' We asked for a misconduct letter, this seems to be the wrong one.'

So it's a minimum of 3 consecutive admin errors. Which either stretches credulity or indicates a very shoddy process.

NC asks about the phrase cry bullying witness hasn't heard of it.

Neither have i

Cry bullying?

Witness isn't the only one who needs a bathroom break

AttillaThePlum:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC291742/officers

Witness done

oooo nice.

And we're done.

She probably thinks it went really well.

Doing housekeeping about submissions

What did NC say about MW not being fit to be a CEO of a rape crisis charity?

She's right, of course, but it was delightfully blunt. I did enjoy that bit.