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

[we resume]
NC: would like to let AL know that his sound over the remote stream is not good [mic is repositioned]

NC: returning to the outcome letter from MK grievance - please read last paragraph.
NC: You say there that, considering the available provision there is for men and women, that there is not need to stop staff using 'affirmed gender' toilets.

NC: Surely this is saying that the privacy and dignity of your female staff is not a proportionate and justified reason for preventing men using the women's loos.

NC: But your few T-indentifying staff would not have found themselves without suitable loos if you'd had a single-sex policy - you had single occupancy loos, accessible loos.
NC: I suggest that it's not OK to ask all your female staff who don't want to share with men to use
Show more

NC Am saying the impact on the few men is nothing like as great as the impact on all your female staff.
AL: It never came up as an issue.

NC: Letting men use women's toilets makes all ten toilets on each floor unsuitable for women
AL: It was never raised as an issue.

NC: It's surely not OK to set up unfair and unreasonable arrangements and then expect your female staff to complain about them? You shouldn't do it in the first place.
AL: We didn't have any complaints.

They came back early.

They never come back early!

It's the same culture as when parents say, if you tell us the truth we won't get mad at you, then proceed to get mad at you.

Just because an employer might say they're approachable about issues doesn't make it materially or factually true.

Also, men must have privacy at the urinals. Have to let the lads have privacy and dignity. Whereas he can’t seem to summon up much concern for women, who are main victims of sexual assault, flashing and voyeurism, secret filming, need much more intimate privacy re menstruation etc. Fine to have the lads wandering around creeping out women, and putting women in a situation which increases possibility of male offences against them.

Now we see the chart showing alleged sexual harassment at his company. Oh, but didn’t he assert that all the men at Leonardo were sainted. Even contractors. Quelle surprise.

From TT

NC: You can only think it's proportionate to disadvantage all your female staff for the same of a handful of men, if you place a startlingly low value on your female staff?
AL: [still can't hear him that well!]

NC: So if female staff decide to put up with unsuitable arrangements, rather than rock the boat as MK has, that's fine by you?
AL: Don't agree that's the case here.

NC: What consultation did you undertake with female staff before adopting the practice?
AL: No consultation, because no change in policy took place.

NC: Came into place with nobody considering it, or writing it down, or consulting anyone at all, at any time? Just because nobody in management was prepared to say no to trans identifying men?
AL: Disagree. Everything just natrually evolved over time.

NC: Moving onto the grievance. [ref p246-247] looking particularly at these bullet point questions p247.
NC: Those Qs are wholly reasonable - easy to anwser?
AL: Yes

NC: What consultation did you undertake with female staff before adopting the practice?
AL: No consultation, because no change in policy took place

From TT

NC: p310 - outcome letter gives the answers to them. The first Q who was consulted - you reply that RR took legal advice. That's not actually an answer is it?
AL: Well we'd said there wasn't a policy, but that RR had consulted HR to find out practice, and took advice, but no not consultation

Letting men into women’s spaces isn’t “an evolution over time”, it’s a decision taken to turn a blind eye to men barging into them.

NC - It wasn't so much a policy as a practice of institutional cowardice.

🔥

NC institutional cowardice

AL what do you mean by that?

You know Andy you know!

He didn’t like hearing ‘institutional cowardice’, did he??

NC: More accurate answer wd have been "we didn't dare say no, so we didn't consult anyone"

I wouldn't have dared complain if I worked there, especially as they clearly prioritise men with sexual paraphilias and fantasies of being a woman over women themselves- think this feeling (I don't think I'm a coward) is true of many women.

I also wouldn't feel safe to raise bodily privacy concerns with a male senior colleague, it would be embarrassingly inappropriate to have to do so. Kelly is brave.

How can he keep saying no one raised it as an issue when that is exactly what MK did do, and what this whole tribunal is about?

From TT

NC: More accurate answer wd have been "we didn't dare say no, so we didn't consult anyone"
AL: Don't agree.

NC: Next Q is when was policy introduced. True answer wd have been 'don't know when, because of institutional cowardice - didn't dare say no to T identifying men. Just quietly let the men do what they wanted"
AL: [missed]

On to workplace regs 92!

That's what I keep wondering

Not a policy, just a practice of institutional cowardice?

Andy is silent.

[Haltingly ] Er, what do you mean by that...

No surprise to anyone that an equality impact assessment wasn't carried it.

From TT

NC: [ref] this is the grievance meeting. MK says there is a need to communicate the policy to staff, and it's noted that company may not wish to develop formal policy. That's just hoping the women won't make a fuss isn't it?
AL: Reiterate that there weren't any complaints

NC: Next Q is about how L is interpreting 'men' and 'women' per 1992 workplace regs. You answer, same as EA2010. Now that SC has clarified, is that still your position?
AL: Not clear yet

NC: You contend 1992 regs might differ from EA?
AL: I can't really say
NC: Fair enough

How does he know that others haven't raised this issue? He clearly doesn't read paperwork!

I worked in construction for years. Only once did I go to HR over the behaviour of a male member of staff. That does not mean there was only one occasion of their male staff being absolute sexist arseholes.

From TT

NC: Next Q is what EqImpactAss conducted. Answewr is the same - no decision made so no EIA
AL: Correct

NC: MK describes reason women might want single sex spaces. Your response is a grudging acknowledgmnet that's reasonable, and that you'll recategorise some loos as single occupancy?
AL: Not grudging no. Attempt to meet MK needs

From TT

NC: Does not address the issue that a woman might meet a man in the ladies. And means that even if the single-occupancy ones are suitable for women, those are now the only ones that are bar the accessible?
AL: [missed]

Attempt to shut her up, he means.