Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 2

[ickky]

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.

Abbreviations:
C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

From TT

[missed]
ST [to bundle] Diversity and eq opportunities are areas where employees and employer have legal obligations, etc. Treating people fairly, no unlawful discrimination, etc. Does that reflect co approach in 2023
AR yes
ST and now
AR yes

AR Yes. Commitment to diversity.
ST If there are issues where L needs further advice what steps taken
AR Make UK, would check with them

So apparently Make UK is the ultimate arbiter of diversity, like Stonewall is the ultimate arbiter of the law...

This is actually revealing the mechanisms by which genderwoo took over so much of public life - reliance on totally biased - and as we now know, mistaken - outside advice to reshape company's policies.

It's like Maria's issues have completely gone over the top of his head. I bet he still doesn't get what her bloody problem is!

From TT

ST Reads sometimes need to make eg reasonable adjustments in order to treat everyone fairly, etc. Reflect your opinion of co
AR [sound] [ but generally positive agreement]We want people to talk freely about how they are feeling.
ST Have you been involved in considering aims of diversity policy

I hope he’s braced!

Could we get to the toilets? This sounds like an attempt at PR.

I don't think the noise is from him because I happened to read that suggestion at a time that he took a brief pause and put his hands away from the desk, and the interference noise continued. I think it is someone typing 'behind us' (wherever 'we' orthe camera is located), maybe a panel member of one of the R's team?

Oh god, for ppl not observing, Letton has finally started looking at the bundle on instruction from his counsel. I think that's all she's got. He hasn't come prepared, in any discernable sense. He's not fluent or volunteering information. All ST can do is read out bits of his own policy and ask him to agree that's what is said, and so on.

I bet ST went home and cried at the unfairness that Naomi got the best client.

PR waffle is all he's got.

I am propping my eyelids open with matchsticks to stay awake through this gratuitous display of smuggery.

Roll on Naomi, there's mince-meat to be made.

Basically ST's exam-in-chief is...
"Leonardo, you can see before you your homework. So what mark would you award yourself?"

And MakeUK took it from Stonewall

Hmm. They’ve come so far, have they?

Well, now they can enable the lads who wish to enter spaces, to look and listen, where women are carrying out intimate functions, or/and are in a state of undress. And, best of all, call out the women hateful if they don’t want to be included as props for men. You couldn’t make it up what a useful facility this ‘inclusive’ stuff has been for men.

The lads they employ have better than the nude calendars of yesteryear. They have access (under the pretence of ‘inclusivity’) to real life women (without the women’s consent) who they can creep out.

From TT

AR If not directly, certainly involved
ST bullet point c valuing all employees. Co committed to this is writing. What's your view c practice?
AR WE have an environment where [words not clear, but generally agreeing]
ST Does policy inc details c who employee should speak to if suffered discrimination etc

AR Yes, first = line manager
ST reads list of people to speak to. Do you feel the routes provided to employees provides a number of options?
AR Yes, HR contact, people partners, TU rep, etc. I hesitated on restricted work contract but [missed]
ST How open is culture for employees to raise issues

AR Very open. We get lots of comments. c 60% employee engagement gives us an idea of temperature of employment. T Us, lots of avenues.
ST Raising anon issues? Could that be referred to a your whistleblowing link?
AR Yes, another avenue. We don't have lots but there will always be one or two [raised in this area]

Plus ST did his homework for him whilst he played Fifa online.

I've got to go out for an hour or so. I wish I'd done it half an hour ago. NC is going to be after lunch isn't she.

Leonardo is very open for employees to raise issues. Then we will ignore them for over a year, threaten to report them for a hate crime and force them to take us to an employment tribunal for us to finally give any kind of response.

How long until Naomi gets her turn? Has there been any time estimation given?

Lunch break.

Back at 2 pm

"Do you have any knowledge of its aims?"
"Well, erm, mutter, muter, eeerm, er, wel I think er...."

compared to NC's amazing use of silence for impact, ST is using silence unavoidably because he is confounding her every effort and all she can do is pause and then ask for a break.

From TT

ST Views coming out of networks/
AR Networks meet together.
ST Any personal knowledge of Equalise network
AR No personal. Seen correspondence
ST Knowledge of aims?
AR To ensure we are inclusive employer. Allows an opportunity for people to raise matters.
AR Membership?

From TT

[ Note: That should be: ST Membership?]
AR Not sure there is any group of employees who aren't
able to join.
ST Am now going on to next part of my questioning. Might it be a good time to break?

TT posts a minute or two after the action.

From TT

J Back at 2 [they confirm timing, J tells AR c not to talk to anyone while still giving evidence]
[ends]

TT's 2nd Morning tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1973701755629445264.html

😁
What is strange about this line of questioning is that it seems not only irrelevant but actively harmful to L's case - because of the glaring omissions. The lack of consideration for women's privacy and dignity looks more intentional, given how keen they seem to be to help out other groups. One in particular, obviously.