Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal 29th September 10am

[ickky]

Hello

Don't know much about this case other than Naomi Cunningham is representing Ms Kelly.

If you want to observe send an email to

[email protected]

Subject line

Ms BM Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited Employment Tribunal – hearing Case number: 8001497/2024

Ask for the link and pin to observe.

State you are a member of the public and give your full name and the email address you will use to access the tribunal.

Anyone interested?

Sounds like KT is being possessed by a demon

I miss Judge Goodman and Martin Reuby.
She ran a tight ship.

😂 I was going to get a crucifix!

@GCITC

She seems to be fighting it off though, it's coming and going.

From TT

ST I'm trying to confirm re gaps in timing. U said this am..
MK After a couple of months, he came back and said he had no response / answer to my Q
ST U were told by his LM that he didnt have an answer from their LM
MK I asked him to escalate it to his own LM

I know Martin.

I agree with Boily - if ST is angling to suggest that MK who I'm assuming is able-bodied, should use the accessible toilet, she is talking herself into trouble, and I hope NC is alert to that.
Of course she is, NC was born alert😄

Does he know that Mumsnet think he is great?

As if...

From TT

ST I'm trying to confirm re gaps in timing. U said this am..
MK After a couple of months, he came back and said he had no response / answer to my Q
ST U were told by his LM that he didnt have an answer from their LM
MK I asked him to escalate it to his own LM

You know him personally?

Please pass on my regards. I thought he was wonderful during Allison’s tribunal.

I don't know. I might text him. He is great.

Either the J isn't taking notes, or they are quicker at writing than BigSond is, and that I am. It makes the proceedings seem more like a conversation.

would just like to confirm that what I say does not indicate my or Leonardo's views on any matter
what does this quote from the Leonardo solicitor mean - how can something she says NOT indicate her own views?

He should come and do an AMA!

From TT

ST Robin escalated to Graham. And it took two months, this was about June 23. Yr enquiry then was asking for a policy on toilets in phases 1 and 2 and being accessibsle by sex and not gender
MK Yes
ST Yr email to Jill Nairn (JN) says y'd asked Robin [describes events] This isnt just a hypothetical Q?
Yes

ST Was it a genuine Q to discover policy?
Yes
ST 9 days later u were told that they were based on 1992 health and Safety regs
MK Yes
ST So u knew what L's policy was?
MK I dont think it's clear as what did she mean by gender? A man self ID as a woman. I didnt think it

I wondered about that. Is she not representing her client?

I'm sure it's always nice to be appreciated.

As long as it doesn't turn into a tide of jam/Eoin McLove incident.

Hahaha Maria is so good.

Counsel for Respondent isn't even trying to keep her North and North East on their correct compass posts. It's like listening to a low-rent version of the Charlotte Elves/Elspeth Pitt XX for Fife now, asking about walking speed around secret squirrel toilet route.

I thought Counsel was not supposed to ask questions to which they don't already know the answer? Maria is just "Yep" "yep" nodding these qu's through.We need Judge Kemp to come over from Dundee to tell respondent "You don't know what we're talking about, do you?"

Here's Gill Nairne, VP for HR, back in 2023, enjoying a night out where hopefully there were adequate and appropriate sex specific toilet facilities provided for all the exec staff, unlike back home at Leonardo UK where they were incorrectly labeled by 'gender'. www.linkedin.com/posts/gill-nairne-5ab99a71_fabulous-night-celebrating-80-years-of-leonardo-activity-7075452875388116992-qPoj/

The lawyer may believe that no-one can change sex but might have to argue that on behalf of her client.

Counsel For L-UK: Is there a reason you didn't raise the matter then?
MK: What, sorry, for an incident that hadn't yet occured?

In setting up her q - I think she's trying to show that MK did in fact know the company's policy and is grandstanding about it not being clear - ST has revealed how much time and effort MK put into pursing this issue, with no response.
It seems to be showing up her client as inefficient and lacking in clarity.

I think she is placating the TRAs by hinting that her side might not agree with the FWS judgment, but that she is having to defend the case within the law as stated. She has seen the mess JR made trying to do otherwise

From TT

answered the Q. I was trying to get to the bottom of this
ST When were u aware they were sep by gender?
MK Prob 2018/9 when I was in Luton [sound issues]. I decided the company was allowing him to use the toilets
ST He had the approval of the co?
Yes

MK That was the only trans employee afaik
ST U didnt ask Qs back then?
MK There was only 1 person in Luton, it didnt impact me and was hard to raise issues
ST 3 ppl complained to you?
MK Yes. I think as JCC rep. They were confused and surprised, rather than as friends

MK As it was a visitor I said this would end soon. Ppl werent talking about the issue, was pre Forstster and wldnt have felt comfy to raise
ST Why didnt u raise? When did u become aware of A< B and C?
MK Sept 22 but no evid he was using the lAdies

Presumably that route circling past all the desks means more and more people might notice her potentially bloodstained clothes. It's not only distance but also exposure.