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

How’s his demeanour? Is he crumbling before her or still acting like they did nothing wrong?

AL: Not grudging no. Attempt to meet MK needs

THIS IS ABOUT THE LAW AND ABOUT MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE NOT ABOUT PATTING MK ON THE HEAD AND SAYING CALM DOWN DEAR, HERE'S A SINGLE SEX TOILET FOR YOU....
oh wait it wasn't even that, it was 'We've just made your only women's toilet into a mixed sex one😡

This has happened to me. Luckily when the bloke came out of the internal cubicle he was mortified but I shudder to think what could have happened with a different man

edited to say: reply fail! I meant, being locked in a room with an inner cubicle and a man coming out of it so we were locked in the room together

Can't believe he willingly agreed to that.

Tribunal Tweets

@tribunaltweets
·
52s

NC: ANd response to FWS has been to consult unions on how to get round it, not to train staff to know and follow it.

The unmentioned elephant in the room is that the company policy to allow special men to use the Ladies is only because the CEO's trans identifying son joined the firm.

From TT

NC: [ref] MK points out there has been no equalities training mandated for staff since 2018, not refreshed since then
AL: that's correct
NC: Specifically, not refreshed post Forstater 2021?
AL: We accepted that we would have to do something in that space. It's under development. [missing rest of this]

NC: Do we gather that the training still has not been refreshed? Still ignores Forstater? If it was being revised, and put out to all staff, you'd know?
AL: YEs I would
NC: Not refreshed post FWS SC? You'd know if it had?
AL Yes

NC: ANd response to FWS has been to consult unions on how to get round it, not to train staff to know and follow it.

And this… as if none of what she said had sunk in…

It is utterly bizarre but true that you can get people to agree with statements about it being wrong that Isla Bryson was temporarily housed in a female prison estate and it’s wrong to allow a man to be in women’s sports but then they resolutely will not see that this applies to all men.

That somehow they know or we all know who is a ‘true’ trans and those who aren’t. And a ‘true’ teans woman is a woman because of feelings. The cognitive distortions to accommodate the dissonance is incredible.

We took advice and consulted unions never helpful given how captured they all are…

He really could have done without answering that question again!

ST should have kept her mouth shut.

WOW!

They’re sincere, tho…🙄

Which question?

That L consulted with the TUs to discuss how to get around the FWS judgment.

How to get around the FWS judgement, rather than implement it.

To be clear, I understand the child of the former CEO is a biological woman.

It was over four years ago that the Forstater judgment was made 🙄

It's not looking good for Leonardo here.

Sorry, had a spam phonecall.

From TT

ST: Way that question was put - it was a proposition, and witness said "OK" - not clear what he was agreeing to.
J: Perhaps a point for re-examination? Or NC can re-ask?

NC: Put it to you that L response has been to ask unions how to get round it, rather than how to comply with it?
AL: Meetings have been very, very vocal, about not changing current practice yet. Unions keen to wait for guidance. Our aim was to get to a position where we could say what we were doing.

AL: We agreed to take advice, to see what other employers were doing, and consensus was to make no change until, well, and keep things under review.

NC: That's a long-ish answer but boils down to 'yes' - response has not been to say, SC is clear, let's get on with it, but to agree with the union to try to get round it?
AL: Not just the union - other discussions - but yes, decision to wait until things are clearer.

NC: That's a long-ish answer but boils down to 'yes' - response has not been to say, SC is clear, let's get on with it, but to agree with the union to try to get round it?
AL: Not just the union - other discussions - but yes, decision to wait until things are clearer.
It's great to have 'it's all so unclear, we're waiting for clarity before we stop breaking the law' approach being exposed in a tribunal, before a judge, and under scrutiny from NC.

NC inaudible at times now.

Edit: better now.

Has his mic died

💯

The sound is appalling now. Andy periodically completely unintelligible.

Thank you for this info

Wow! Yes ST should have wheest and not allowed NC to clarify!

Late to this but works both ways - there is an option for TIMs - in the men's toilet