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?

No, because as far as I understand it still has 'womens' toilets that men can use.
The workplace should be providing a good number of men only and women only toilets, and then if it so wants some single self contained toilets too.
?

It might be a good idea for you to read the Tribunal Tweets linked to on this thread, or just the thread itself, to get an idea of what has been going on for her, and for how long.

ST was working with the little they could give her. It seemed to be small holes that they were picking at, in terms of whether MK was perhaps a little disingenuous or self-serving when raising concerns to a non-union joint negotiating committee (it certainly didn't seem so from the comprehensive, straightforward responses MK gave); how far away/inconvenient the compromise toilet arrangements were (intimate details of menopause had to be shared to justify the literally bleeding obvious); and MK was nodding and deftly batting away the petty nonsense as it was put to her by a nearly equally restrained and professional counsel for R.

Naomi didn't need to intervene much (or at all?) during cross, which was an amazing testament in itself to MK's ability and calmprofessionalism and dedication to the task, under very trying circumstances.

It's a huge organisation that's had a lot of staff turnover, and the people preparing the defence may not have realised how astoundingly calmly and well MK was going to present herself and defend her case.

If MK doesn't want to return to that role, she would be an asset to any competitor, or could probably snap up an opportunity in a related field. And it would be a massive well-deserved loss to Leonardo UK.

Ta very much MyrtleLion for posting TT all day.

There has definitely been a lot of nonsense encouraged/supported by the leadership, but MK hasn't had any clashes that would necessitate colleagues being called as witnesses? Her work seems to have been, over a period of years, to keep raising issues to management, and it is management that have taken terrible decisions or treated her awfully in formal meetings. Eg the senior manager who suggested briefly/"jokingly" that MK's questions might represent a Hate Incident, on the 15th of the month that the Hate Crime Bill was passed in Scotland a fortnight earlier.

Or
"I'm not Jane Russell; I've never even ridden a pony.
I don't want to make you cry and I don't want NC to ruin me,
please god have mercy on us all."

Is there adequate provision, that was not my take from the evidence.

Besides which rectifying a problem after the fact is no defence.

She was subjected to a course of conduct that was discriminatory and harassing. The most damning bit being the threats in an e mail where they tried to prevent her seeking legal redress claiming that going to crowdfunded would cause them reputational damage. Ergo they could then justifiably sack her. Falls within whistle blowing protections.

From my skim-reading, it looks like a lot more than that.

They should have been following the EA by keeping their women's toilets single-sex. The "secret squirrel" loos would not have enabled them to comply with the law, because there weren't enough of them for the number of women in the workforce. Also, they issued DEI bumf that was Stonewall-addled guff ignoring most of the EA PCs. She raised these issues with management some years ago, and they did nothing to rectify it. Instead, they forced her to address meetings in which she had to explain things like menstrual flooding in order to explain why women generally prefer privacy. And this in the kind of male-dominated environment in which colleagues would make jokes about women being on the rag. Also, one of her bosses made a joke about her complaints possibly being a hate-crime in Scotland.

It's a good case, because (unlike e.g. Sandie Peggie) she hasn't done anything that could give them an excuse to make out that she's the bad guy.

its good to see the media reporting on this case. It seems Sandie Peggie has woken the media up. Sunlight as they say.

On Scotland section BBC website. Herald also reporting on it

Engineer used 'secret toilets' after trans colleague encounter https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz9wegrnpo

Yes she , herself, encountered at least one whilst dealing with bloody hands.
In her role as a staff representative, she was told about the others by a number of her female (and at least one male) colleagues

I'm not suggesting that trans colleagues should be called as witnesses.

I'm saying that if any of them have been public activists they should not be able to hide behind a blanket of anonymity the purpose of which is to respect and maintain the privacy of those who do not put themselves into the public arena.

It should not shield those who are happy to lap up applause and plaudits on a public stage but don't want a spotlight turned on them when pushing their way into a toilet with a woman mopping up her menstrual flood.

Particularly when that poor woman has been ignored and humiliated by her employers for years and has to take to the fucking witness stand and tell the world about her said menstrual flooding to get them to fucking give her a single sex space.

And breathe.

I used to work in the Scientific CS, as a senior researcher and engineer.
This was pre the Trans ideology, but trying to be taken seriously by the (almost totally) male colleagues and management, was , shall we say, an uphill struggle 😡🙄

I can totally empathise with her statements , how she has put up with it all these years I do not know

Michael Foran gave a fabulous explanation in suitable facilties to meet the requirements of the law. But bottom line, ALL the facilties need to be in line with the jaw so allowing men to use the female facilties is not permitted just because there is another facility that Maria could use.

Great article in The Times

https://www.thetimes.com/article/7bcfc0eb-32d5-4299-8357-d4d2fc4acf34?shareToken=1143eef45a0012cd65dcd60d64b183d6

Watching this with great interest. I have children interested in engineering and Leonardo does a huge amount of work to draw in young female engineers. I think the girls’ grammar schools they court should be aware of just how they actually treat their experienced female engineers!

I accidentally drank a mouthful of Diet Coke once. I immediately washed my mouth out with gin and avoided any long-term problems.

😂😂😂

Thanks to everyone for their comments here. I decided to sit this one out, or at least not spend my days glued to my lap top watching the goings on in a courtoom many miles away, in an attempt to wean myself off these ETs but I'm not sure I've suceeded really. Because here I am, reading all of this.

It wasn't until I read the linked DM and Times pieces that I leant that Maria's case has been brought on the grounds of harassment, and direct & indirect discrimination. Jus thought I'd put that here in case anyone else was a bit in the dark.

I did both... ironically...and mentioned in my post prior to this one...and asked what the actual claim was for. It wasn't clear from TT. I presume it must be on the court paperwork.

Strictly speaking if a man who identifies as female is in the women's loos I agree it is mixed as someone pointed out. But I'm not aware there is anything actively prohibiting mixed loos.

Just that an employer has to provide a sufficient number of loos for each sex or completely self contained ones. Employers don't have to provide loos with cubicles for a particular sex.

From TT they provided her with a completely self contained one. So that's why I was asking what her employment claim is. There was a lot about it supposedly being far away so maybe that it is still insufficient.

I do have less sympathy with someone if they are aware of trans users and have reasonable private other facilities that they can use. It is unfair sure but doesn't breach their needs.

I agree with all of that. I still feel a bit haunted by the evidence in chief today. I'm so very glad for Maria that, after putting herself through the devastating chief, she composed herself so well that NC was able to sit quietly admiring MK's strength as MK owned the cross exam as though it were a viva. I hope Maria or a friend has had a little peek online and can see women across social media in total awe and cheering her on for tomorrow.

As for the trans colleagues, I did so much digging around last week that I feel near-Kate Searle levels of smugness and satisfaction that the worst of the former 'inspirations' are already off crying in corners of the internet because the spotlight has shifted dramatically and the affirmation they crave has disappeared. They won't be publicly humiliated, but they also won't get the public parade that Upton had, when his 'people' walked him in to the tribunal each day. No 'love and treats' crowdfunder for Ivy or Sam. Just obscurity and a quiet pee in a locked cubicle where noone cares about their pronouns or feels.

What I'd like as an immediate consequence for the leaders is some nice disruptive strike action, while their attention is split between the tribunal and the union ballot tomorrow. Followed by a massive media backlash, severe recruitment problems, and bonuses slashed across the Board for piss poor performance and results. Plus, ideally, massive freak plumbing problems in the C-suite toilets that leave them wading through piss in the basement bogs while maintenance are stuck behind a picket line. Just for starters, until NC has eaten her weetabix and really lays into them.

Also in the Evening Standard
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/edinburgh-b1250680.html

You are talking rubbish now to be perfectly frank. The 1992 regulations require that facilities for changing and toilets must be determined and sufficient, by biological sex. It is not sufficient to proved some facilities say one alternative, and males are not allowed to use any female spaces, which was what was going on.

One or two cubicles are not sufficient for the size of the work force.

You seem to be coming from the angle that women should budge over for men claiming to be women.

Frankly a dead in the water argument.

Maria is going a fantastic thing and I hope she knows how many women are behind her, she is a star

Good call. Click the links from the thread as we find them, and the school/org admin can come to see the reason for mumsnet traffic for themselves. It will probably be a great relief that it is misogyny-central Leonardo UK, and not the schools, that have caused offence!

https://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/news/leonardo-rampaging-chariots-2024/

https://www.sggs.org.uk/news/?pid=6&nid=4&storyid=191

https://apprenticeshipguide.co.uk/apprenticeship-success-stories/leonardo-matilda/

https://www.smallpeicetrust.org.uk/we-spoke-with-senior-systems-engineer-at-leonardo-olivia-freestone-to-find-out-more-about-her-role-working-for-one-of-the-uks-foremost-engineering-organisations/

https://www.stge.org.uk/stories/bushra

https://www.morson.com/re-building-helicopters-building-careers-we-chat-to-leonardo-aviation-repair-and-design-engineer-nicola-cole

Shame on you Clive Higgins, you don't deserve STEM women at Leonardo UK. x.com/ldo_ukceo