"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, “Rose”, who:

• identifies as female
• has not undergone any physical or hormonal transition and has full male genitalia
• has cited inclusivity policies
• is backed by the trust’s HR department
• has been granted access to a single-sex changing room for women.

The NHS trust’s HR department dismissed the nurses’ concerns, stating they should “broaden their mindset” and “be educated”. More details can be found at Sex Matters

The hearing is due to start on October 20th and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online email: [email protected] [[email protected]] requesting remote access to the case of 2501192/2024 Hutchinson and others Vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, starting 20th October. Also include your full name and your role in the hearing (eg member of the public or observer). Note, it is likely you will need the same full name and email address to log into the hearing, and the name will be visible to other observers.

The hearing will be live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets have more background to this case on their substack, including links to their coverage of the earlier hearings.

In earlier hearings reported at http://archive.today/nh5v9, the claimants were supported by the Christian Legal Centre and represented by Pavel Stroilov (solicitor) and Bruno Quentaville (barrister). The respondents were represented by Simon Cheetham KC. We do not know yet if the same representation will be in place for the October hearing

Background information from Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

‘If he had asked… ‘ back on the male pronouns for RH by the barrister.

SC - if he had been asked would it be appropriate?

Yep. It's an absolute farce. Everyone knows he's a bloke.

From TT

only see back of envelope
BH - we'd had lots of mail by then, they would ahve known where I was
SC - you were well known?
BH - could just type my name into system to see
J -don't know who opened?
BH no could have been a mistake but unlikely
J - only eg of open mail
BH - yes

Apologies ❤️

From TT

SC - threatening letters from trust section of statement, vol 3 pg 392, para 80. you describe letter from Andrew Thacker AT, threat of disciplinary over media coverage.
BH - yes
SC - aware of uk media involvement and legal action, it's not appropriate to make allegations about

I think the 'both as bad as each other' defence doesn't let the trust off culpability, but could reduce damages.

From TT

SC - colleagues.
BH - yes
SC - announces intention to investigate, ask you to refrain from further comment on colleagues till IX is done.
BH - yes reasonable
SC - reminded of duty as colleague, then will not tolerate behaviour inside or outside of work
BH - thretening, Trust had

And also cut down on the number of claims that the nurses might succeed with.

From TT

BH - decided unhappy with us, if there was a disiplinary it wound' t go in our favour
SC - was there a discipliary?
BH - no and they wouldn't dare now. I had to take sick leave aftre this because of Trust then AT thought it OK to send me this
SC - sent to all claimants in press

BH - yes
SC - an appropriate letter in light of press
BH - he caused be a vast amount of stress over this letter others and emails
J -?
SC - was going to ask same qu
?
SC - another letter you consider threatening. pg 23. notified start of resolution process. You don't say threat

Having my PICC line removed so pause in pasting

Home soon, Myrtle💐

The defence that the Trust was dealing with this and so the nurses shouldn’t have gone to the press is predicated on the Trust actually dealing with it. From the start. Which they didn’t. It is upsetting that the Trust dismissed the very real issue that was affecting the nurses as vexatious, instead of giving them the respect they deserved. Shows how little respect the Trust (and the wider NHS)gives to hard working nurses who are the backbone of the NHS. Such disrespect.

2+2 =5 training

From TT

SC - ening. Presumably you welcome they are formally addressing your concerns?
BH - page?
SC - 82 qu is did you welcome it?
BH - for me too little too late, should have been done earlier. It was half hearted, should have been done earlier
SC - but trying to do something
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
BH - trying to show they are trying to do something.
SC - invite to attend resolution meeting which may start disciplinary proceedings of you. Found?
BH - yes, sorry found
SC - 6th aug 24 - letter, do you accept RH was entitled to raise complaint
BH - yes
SC - just like you
BH -
Show more
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
SC - and had to investigate
BH - yes but it was in retaliation, felt he'd been coaxed by Unison member to do this.
SC - even if true, employer has to ix
BH - yes
SC - then a standard letter
BH - more keen to act on RH concerns as followed procedures whereas for us
J - straying
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
39s
SC - standard letter, not a threat, just what should happen
BH - felt like a threat, TA in that meeting, we were noise in the system, that's how we were deemed. They were willing to support RH use of CR
SC - this was just dealing with RHs concern, resolution procedure form

From TT

J - not read this
SC - everyone read. Pausing.
SC - that's the procedure form, Trust is just following process. not supporting RH agree
BH - yes following a process, but the conclusion had already been drawn
J - on what
BH - they deemed us hostile

From TT

SC - what should the Trust have done put it in bin?
BH - no, do the procedure
SC - has this been concluded? to your knowledge resolved?
BH - don't think there's been an IX
J - did wonder where this was, this complaint as you read it, point of ?
BH - yes
J - section 3

From TT

J v low volume
J - interviews
BH - yeah interviews
SC - your case is this is bad faith allegation
BH - yes
SC - because RH had nothing to complain about
BH - I felt it was retaliation
J - is that the allegation, in the box, anything false there?
BH - I dont think we created

Duplicate

Please keep going as I have to lie flat for 15 minutes

Hutchinson is very powerful here. The barrister is getting frustrated. She is holding her own.

'put it in the bin' - he was frustrated not getting a yes out of her

From TT

an environment
J - but nothing false about what happened? it's about belief RH felt intimidated?
BH - yes.
SC - you say in WS para 83, if he felt that way he would have avoided our unit. You say there's been no hostility, but there has
BH -no
SC - persoal intimate details in pres
is hostile.
BH - having a man in the changing room is hostile
J - answer qu
BH - no not hostile, believed it true
J - leave aside rights and wrongs, looking at it whether it's true do you accept any personal details in press is ?? Would you like it?
BH - there has been
J - I know

Enjoy your 15 minutes of horizontal time!

I did have to read it twice though as I thought you were posting that the judge had said he needed to lie flat for 15 minutes. Very off court room behaviour indeed.

Thanks. It's a bit hard to follow the TT. (I am very grateful for TT! It's just that the nuance of what's happening is difficult to capture).

If someone could do a small overview in the break I'd be very grateful.

One massive point of difference between this case and NHS Fife is that County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust are going to make a good go at having run a correct process where for NHS Fife that looks hopeless.

She is as cool as a cucumber. I’m so impressed.

There was major eye-rolling from BH at SC saying that there'd be another hour after lunch.