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

Can [may] I say that I appreciate this response to to SupremeArbiter's unequivocal 'NO' to sharing accessible toilets with parents with buggies etc.
I love that you asked a question in good faith, DustyWindowsills, and read the answer carefully and responded like this.
I really like it when there are respectful and thoughtful exchanges here, they aren't exactly 10 a penny in online discussions, and I always like to note them
I agree with the 'No' .
I'm not quoting exactly form the legendary Doc T and other regs, but I believe that in public sex-segregated toilets, at least one of the stalls/cubicles is supposed to be larger than the others and that is to allow space for buggies, etc.

Also, there is a category of toilet called 'Ambulant' which has higher toilet height, grab rails etc, for disabled or just less able people who are not wheelchair users, so the space does not have to be big enough to manoeuvre a w/chair.

This leaves the wheel-chair accessible toilet free for people who really need them

More of these categories of toilet would be good for everybody.

Yes. Thank you from me too @DustyWindowsills

I know that accessible toilets often have the only baby changing facilities which can be used as justification for families being in there but really these should be in the standard toilets.

Anyway - is tomorrow the oral submissions? Will TT cover that too? Same link as before?

Thats such a good observation. It’s very high risk for women to talk about their bodily functions/needs. They risk all sorts of discrimination. Makes Maria Kelly seem even more brave

Just caught up with the TT threads. Wow! I wish I could make every org that's flouting FWS read this - all those HR and DEI bods who've been trundling along obliviously swallowing whatever shite the TRA feed them without a single care for the law or women's rights - and seriously ask themselves if they want to be on the stand next. NC is magnificent!

Also, just to say, an apprenticeship and an HND were a perfectly respectable way into engineering back in the 70s and 80s when the proportion of 18 y/o who went to university was in single figures. There are still quite a few engineers around who came that route and are now at the top of their profession.

Also, just to say, an apprenticeship and an HND were a perfectly respectable way into engineering back in the 70s and 80s when the proportion of 18 y/o who went to university was in single figures.

Indeed, a perfectly respectable career path to take. What concerned me about AL was what HR/Personnel qualifications had he gained once he left the shop floor? He didn't acquit himself very well the other day!

Interesting. I also challenge organisations on their data collection policies and wording. A lot. Its tedious but necessary. One of my latest challenges was to an NHS body researching women's health where seriously the differences in gender and sex really matter. They wouldn't reply to me last time, prior to SC ruling. I might pick that one back up again.

But this is at the heart of this conflict of interest. He cannot be associated with Make, buying their services, being a committee member, and then disagree with them. He removed his independence. I do wonder what the process about commissioning of 3rd party services is like at L?

Sorry I mistyped … as we all know the term trans women means men and it’s deliberately confusing the terminology.

And yes I’m only talking about men.

Or they felt they had so many issues with the union already - look at the proposed strike - that it would be better to pander to the caputured than the women. If so shame on them

It's not a conflict of interest.

Leonardo pay a membership fee to Make UK who are a trade association. Make UK represent their members in lobbying and provide group services to their members who may also pay a fee for training courses and materials (as an example).

Make UK will listen to their members and follow their requirements. The board directors and other committees are made of of their members. Staff will advise the board and committees. The whole point of a trade association is for companies to get together and agree collectively what they want and pay the trade association staff to do it for them. There is no requirement for Leonardo or its staff to be independent from Make UK.

I don't believe that the trans issue ever came up at the committee and if it did, they would have asked the Make UK staff to research it and come back with advice. There would be no reason for member companies to disbelieve the staff unless an individual member representative knew the law and said so.

Had Andy known the law, (which he should have), he could have said that the advice received by Make UK was wrong and ask them to consult an employment lawyer for a definitive response.

What's shocking is that Make UK outsourced that advice from Stonewall (probably) rather than employment lawyers. What is equally shocking is that a massive company like Leonardo relied upon the advice of a trade association who relied on the advice of a pressure group, rather than talk to you know, employment lawyers.

Please put your tea down and refrain from spluttering.

My own top highlights are:
**
NC: 4th aim R uses to justify practice - is inclusion of ppl who identify as something other than their sex. I haven't been able to understand this. Could you explain?
AL [is silent]
NC: If neither of us understands it we will move on.
NC: J, I don't know if anyone wants a break?

AND

NC: Self evidently true that there are 2 sexes and sometimes that matters?
AL: Yes I agree
NC: This has outed you as 'gender critical'

I am hoping v much that one of the top stories at Leonardo tomorrow is that Andy Letton has outed himself as Gender Critical. The disappointment for his GI colleagues really should all be on him and the colleagues up the management chain who have built the GI colleagues up, and now are very publicly letting them down.

Thank you. In fact, thanks to everyone. I'm only a newbie but it's so lovely to have a place where I can have opinions and we can talk about them rationally without being shut down or labelled as all sorts of nasty things which are basically variations on 'shut up you stinky poo pants and give me what I want.' I'm learning so much.

It took me a while to realise that Leonardo's were also attacked/protested against by the palestinian activists who've now been banned. Not an excuse, but maybe someone thought 'it's one woman and a loo. Just ignore her and she'll go away and let me get on with the important stuff.'

Everyone makes mistakes. I think Andy now knows that he did! Doesn't make it right, but it's an extra factor. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/palestine-action-activists-occupy-arms-factory-in-edinburgh

Yes, we don't know what, if any, qualifications he has in HR. He lacks competence in any case.

My comment was more in response to someone a few pages back who suggested that he wasn't bright enough to get an engineering degree.

Thank you and your tea warning did no good - that first quote is a belter! Tea everywhere…

No, it was one woman who worked in HR, and he is the VP of HR who had a duty to act in accordance with the law.

'Mistakes' and 'outright refusals to implement the law, even when confronted by a claimant's solicitor over an extended period' are quite distinct categories.

Leonardo UK has several industries but Edinburgh is part of the defence industry. Protests are part of that life. In HR, following the law is also part of life.

Andy Letton knew. He's a GC himself but he preferred Maria to suffer rather than do his job. I hope he has an appropriately uncomfortable return to work today.

You're almost certainly right. I've added to my next year's resolutions list, 'be less nice.'

Welcome, relative newbie, but don't get toooooo comfortable, this thread isn't the Island of Saints and Scholars and tempers can flare and collars can be got hot under and things can be said that might be best left unsaid or phrased differently
These are very sensitive topics we are discussing here, and there's often personal pain and trauma informing our posts. It's a thin line between telling somebody they are being offensive, and 'tone policing', or silencing a woman who is talking with emotion about her lived experience.

It is indeed lovely to have a place where we can talk to each other reasonably, and where it is not unusual to see posts saying 'Sorry I was wrong' or Sorry I got snippy' and to have those apologies immediately accepted.
Which is why I do the Pollyanna-ish thing of noting when there's an exchange like that

I agree, I'd rather call him a fanny than a cunt, even though the words are technically the same thing because fanny can also mean 'idiot' which is softer.

(I do like "bawbag" as well though)

Isn't that part of being safe to talk and being among grown ups who can say 'that came out wrong, I'm sorry.' and ask for a 'do-over' as they call it in autistic circles when it's not come out quite right?

I've stuck my nose into other bits of mumsnet, so I know when to either retreat gracefully or run and hide.

There will always be a balancing act needed, IMO.

On the one hand it is absolutely important to have robust debate and also to be able back down and change our minds when others bring different and often better perspectives than our own.

On the other hand, it sometimes seems painfully likely that certain posters begin with an attempt to ingratiate themselves and also to model the "oh aren't we all on a lovely learning journey" attitude that they hope we will adopt in order for them to teach us what we should think and how we should respond to the poor beleaguered men on the witness stand in any given case. And that gets a hard no from me.

I love the way NC gives bullshitting short shrift.

AL: We tried to get the right people involved, we were diligent, to get it right
NC: That's the end of a topic, so a good moment for lunch?
J: Agree. We will re-start at 1.05pm