Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[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

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

there is absolutely no doubt that senior staff in HR weren’t aware of the SC ruling

I would have hoped that all senior HR staff were aware of the SC ruling, and the Forstater case, and the Peggie case, and you know - the law. And that if they were to be called as a witness in an employment tribunal that they might have - ooooooh I dunno - actually gone to the effort of reading the bundle.

But that's just my view.

I've been trying to work out why this one's affecting me so much. Without at all wishing to belittle MK's experience, it's in many ways one of the more 'mild' ones we've seen - she's not been fired, she's not been publically condemned in open letters signed by hundreds of her colleagues and peers, she's not been directly confronted when in a state of undress, she's 'only' been belittled and stonewalled by her employer.

And yet.

I think it's 3 things.

Partly, my outrage bucket is just full. It's yet another bloody thing, and there's no room left for even a drop without it overflowing.

Partly, it's that even for a relatively 'minor' matter her justifications had to be so extreme. Telling her stories of victimisation and humiliation over and over, simply to get the basic and straightforward human requirement of a lavatory.

And partly because it is mundane. There are no True Believers, no pursuit of a Cause - however wrongheaded. No actual reason for them to treat her this way, apart from the fact that they were entirely unable to see women. No hatred, we are just invisible. Unpersons.

@NoBinturongsHereMate
Maria is everywoman.

Let's be easier on the poor guy. The bundle is probably beyond him.

Why don't we let him off the hook and say it will be enough if he just bothers to read the grounds of claim in advance of giving evidence before a judge in an employment tribunal on behalf of his employer?

Oh, wait ...

This

Quite likely, sadly. But it will be strongly in the interests of the exec to do their utmost to protect MK at this stage.

I hear faint echos of Hannah Arendt's famous remark about the banality of evil.

I am suprised AL hadn't heart of Maya and the other cases, because I would have thought Maria would have told them all as part of her attempts to get this sorted. It didn't just jump straight to tribunal.

I would not be suprised if AL had paid no attention and not looked into any of it further. I would also be unsurprised if the "experts" AL sought advice from kept quiet about them.

Every one of these cases makes me wonder about this unicorn woman every man and employer seems to think is the norm. I, an average middle age woman, cannot think of a single female friend who has never had a gynaecological issue of some sort; nor one who has never been sexually harassed, abused or assaulted in some way. I’d like to assume these women exist but they aren’t my norm. And yet the overriding presumption appears to be women never have these issues unless they flag them, and those that do are outliers.

The whole point of single sex facilities is so we don't have to flag things up, it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. And who believes us anyway?

Andy is a lovely guy. I work here and he supported me in a case that was hurting me and my family badly, despite not knowing or owing me anything. He called the company executive and pressured them to changing their position and checked in with me regularly till fixed.

One of my favourite things about working for Leonardo is in it's 1:1 interactions it's always trying to look after every ones needs.

As an outsider from either side of this debate. I've always been proud of the companies support of LGBT community, even though I'm not remotely affected by it. Unions and HR in lock step. I think the view is always support the vulnerable. But both sides are so emotive because you both believe you are the most vulnerable.

Looking at the tone of this thread, a lot of folk assuming the worst here. When the reality is the opposite.

Casually not formally ie the casual use of Prof Foran is not ascribing the actual title of Professor to him but is common casually as it is shorter than Associate Professor. International students often call their uni teachers Prof because it is simpler, in my view (sorry 😬) than remembering the right rite for the teacher in front of you at any given time.

Have you read his testimony? You’re entitled to your view, obviously, but it’s quite stark how little thought is being given to women’s rights in all corners.

The 'vulnerable' in the cases seem to be those that shout loudest, rather than the quantifiable vulnerable. And they always (or almost always) seem to be XY. Funny that, eh?!

Also, “trans women” are men. In law and reality. Women are the vulnerable people in this equation.

My husband’s experience of Leonardo was an unsympathetic management where people got promoted for arse licking not ability and compliance was encouraged. The Pride LGBT stuff was pushed despite most of the employees being heterosexual and non trans and with a STEM background thinking that gender ideology was nonsense but most keeping their heads down. He had a low opinion of most managers and says the good ones always left and poor ones weren’t sacked but moved sideways or up

@MacBearyFas3 the judgements on this thread are purely on the basis of what he said in court yesterday and today. Nobody knows anything more about him, or the organisation, than that.

Also, if this is the person that the organisation has sent - on his own, with apparently zero preparation - to this employment tribunal, then they are making him the fall guy for a long period of breaking employment and equalities legislation.

I'm sure he's a very nice guy. In fact, "being nice" seems to be at the root of the problem - by being professionally incurious, he was trying to make the mean annoying woman go away and be quiet so he can keep his niceness credentials intact. He was so intent on being nice that he would rather not upset people, than follow the law.

Ok well evidently @2Rebecca knows more about the organisation! But for the rest of the commenters on this thread, we are judging purely on what we have heard in court testimony.

He was so intent on being nice that he would rather not upset people, than follow the law

He would rather not upset men than follow the law, you mean. Doesn't give two hoots about his female employees and their safety, privacy or dignity. Didn't appear to give two hoots about the ET either given his complete lack of preparation for it.

Xiaoxiong · Today 16:47

Women complain and ask what the policy is around allowing TW to self-ID into F toilets
HR scrambles around as it becomes clear there is no policy on this (hence one-year delay waiting for the non-existent policy)

That was exactly what I concluded.

And it was jaw dropping to hear him respond to NC telling him what the law is as, "That's your opinion." It cannot possibly have escaped the tribunal.

I am very surprised that after the supreme court ruling their lawyers did not advise them to have single sex toilets and a few cubicles for people not wanting a same sex toilets and to settle the case because they had been wrong

Poor Andy. Such a lovely guy. And yet incompetent.

and now he is on the world stage proving his incompetence.

Yes. Did they even get any professional legal advice, I wonder? AL referred to getting advice from the union, which we know is full on TWAW.

I wonder that Suzanne Tanner didn't look at it and conclude that they're on a hiding to nothing, or perhaps they did, but decided to plough on regardless.

My husband had no experience of Andy personally. He was one of the high heid yins that rarely came on the shop floor.