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

NC: Previously equal provision for men and women. Now after your changes the men have their own, and the women's is now for both men and women.
AL: We made the change to give MK privacy and dignity

I can't believe he actually said that, but he did!!

I am even more angry listening to his bloody drivel

NC asks him why did you change the F badge on the stairwell toilets to WC? Why not keep it F?

Most tribunals don’t have an employer engaged in an ideological defence of the “most vulnerable minority ever”.

That, I think, is my biggest complaint against NHS Fife, that as a public body it sought to take a political position.

If private employers, even big ones like Leonardo, want to push politics by breaking the law and finding out the consequences then that’s ultimately a matter for their shareholders. I object very much when it’s public sector organizations doing it.

This is all "we just wanted Maria to shut up and fuck off"

NC: Why could you not just put in the single-occupancy usage, but keep them women's toilets?
AL: we were trying to provide for any employee, that wanted additional privacy
NC: What are the other complications you mention?
AL: Well we didn't think it appropriate to ask people to use loos by biological sex.
NC: Doesn't answer why you didn't keep them badged as women only? TW cd
use a single occupancy one, without disturbing female colleague privacy?

Hello!

Slight delay as I had an emergency appointment for my wound. It's infected so they have prescribed antibiotics and done magic things with the dressing. Hopefully it will start to heal properly soon.

Happy to take over @MarieDeGournay if necessary. 💙

So they rebadged the ladies but not the gents. Good spot, judge.

He is walking talking proof that some men just don't get it.

Hi Myrtle, hope you feel better now they've sorted out the dressings, and that the anti-bios work ASAP!

Happy to hand back to the TT Queen, if you're OK to do it

I hope the antibiotics kick in soon, you really are going through the wars.

Your health takes priority. You do wonderful work here but it's important to us that you're looked after. Welcome back we've missed you

He hadn't read the claimant's grounds of claim 😯
[but why am I surprised?]

Jesus christ. So by rebadging things they ended up with a mens toilets, and a mixed sex toilet with two cubicles and a lockable outer door? So a woman could walk in, lock the outer door behind her, and then be faced with a man coming out of one of the cubicles?

last one before Myrtle takes over: reverse time order again!

NC: [ref p31] NC: This is part of C's grounds of claim. Points b-g - assertions, generalisations, have you seen before? No? Cd you read them now then.

AL: Not rebadged because it has urinals in it.

NC: TW would have the 'validation' of using a loo marked W, but female staff wd have more privacy? AL: That's a fair comment NC: But it's not what you chose. J: [asks re the signage change and checking the number of cubicles] need to understand - ladies rebadged unisex, gents not rebadged

Over to you M.

Hang on, he's a witness in a tribunal but hasn't read the claim??

Yes, you make a good point.

From TT

AL: Not rebadged because it has urinals in it.

NC: [ref p31]
NC: This is part of C's grounds of claim. Points b-g - assertions, generalisations, have you seen before? No? Cd you read them now then.

He is the sole witness representing the respondent in a tribunal, but hasn't read the claim!!

NC - Women do menstruate at work don't they?

From TT

NC: We can shorten this section of Qs if you are able to say that those are all statements of the obvious. Can you agree?
AL: Would add that their relevance to the workplace - evidence - not about what goes on at our workplace - generalisations - not applicable to our workplace.

NC: Let's take them one by one. Says W are more fearful of M than vice versa. Doesn't say anything about workplaces
AL: Exactly, it can be true and still not be applicable to our workplace.

He probably didn't think he needed to as convinced they were on the right side of history (and obvious he had no clue what Naomi is like)

I saw Marie had posted but it is was in reverse order.

If you click on Show thread it will sort it chronologically newest at the bottom.

I think needs a graphic description of menstruation...

From TT

NC: You say not relevant, but the 4th one - about using the loo - that happens at work. Menstruation happens at work. Women's need for privacy happens at work.
NC you agreed that they are obvious - do you agree that they are true? [I think AL nodded]