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

Well, he has a penis, you see, and that means he can say / do whatever he wants, and it automatically makes it "right".

Jfc. I'm not observing, but reading the TT transcripts is making me soooo angry! Thanks to all for the transcribing, by the way!

Edited to correct a typo!

See? I told you she was better at this than me😁
I now have the time to open the parcel that was delivered while I was 'on duty'

Am I being more easily confused than usual or has he just said that he's provided for someone who needed more privacy by making the toilet shared usage? And he 'reached out.' I hate that sort of jargon because it's usually been surgically implanted at the same time that brains and ability to think for themselves have been removed.

So it can be true that women are scared of men but not at Leonardo as all his men are just lovely, even the ones who are larping as women.

Bet he now wishes he'd taken half a day to read everything

From TT

NC: Do you any evidence for the tribunal that those generalisations do not apply in the workplace, in yours?
AL: We have had no incidents brought to our attention, as I said, we are a secure environment, doesn't change what's true of the general public

NC: True that women might be more fearful of random strangers than colleagues yes, but, W more afraid of M than vice versa still true?
AL: Yes

NC: Looking at workplaces - it's not just known colleagues are present. There could be visiting contractors too.
AL: But they would also be safe people. People on site would be, um.

You did a great job. Thanks, although I'm starting to think this needs a sensitivity warning. I am getting VERY VERY ANGRY to quote Marvin the Martian.

I'm surprised he didn't do it overnight, given how yesterday went for him. The arrogance is breathtaking.

AL: But they would also be safe people. People on site would be, um.

The man is deluded.

Dangerous people never have jobs, no, Andy.

No you're not being easily confused. That's exactly what he said. And no it doesn't make sense.

That is exactly what he said, they did the rebadging to give MK more privacy - after NC had pointed out that there used to be 2 x gents and 2 x womens and they left the gents and made the women's mixed use - to give MK the privacy she needed!

Is he really saying that Leonardo has never ever employed a dodgy bloke ever? That’s taking not-my-Nigel a very long way.

Thank you so much for stepping in! You've done a terrific job 💙

I think Andy believes in 'safegender'.

From TT

NC [ref p42]
Paragraph 8. Part of R grounds of resistance.

NC: This is defence of R letting trans-identifying men use the women's loos. Says, treat T employees lawfully. Can we look now at p292

NC: This is outcome letter to MK grievance. Look at these paragraphs down to 'their affirmed gender'

[AL reads]

I wonder how many of the men employed by Leonardo beat and rape their partners.

The answer will not be zero.

To paraphrase the marvellous BC, how does he think this is going for him....

Aw shucks
The reverse order thing was only a problem at the beginning when they started the proceedings before TT got going, so there was a big chunk to transcribe.
Most of the time it was just short exchanges.
Thank you for taking over again, let us know if you feel you need a break.

From TT

NC: You quote EHRC code of conduct for services. That is R explanation of 'treating T employees lawfully'?
AL: Yes

NC: You explain R position as compliance with legal and guidance. R was happy to comply with the law as far as it complied with GIT?
AL: It was legal advice and guidance.

NC: You must know by now that SC ruling in April has shown that that advice and guidance was completely wrong?
AL: I know it said sex is biological

He's hiding behind "we took advice" and sounds annoyed

So now we are getting to the point that this senior HR person doesn't seem to have understood the relevance of a key supreme court ruling relating to equality in the workplace...

From TT

NC: It's more than that. It's now clear that SS toilets should be separated by actual sex, not anything else
AL: We took advice -
NC: Please don't tell me the legal advice - privilege.
AL: We took advice and consulted unions, told that it still remains unclear.

NC: You say 'in private sector'. Do you accept then that in the public sector, it would have to be by biological sex?
[missed AL reply]

And find herself actually locked in with him

We all know ‘This Never Happens’ @CriticalCondition