"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 2

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Link to Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, evidence from KD (Day 1) and BH (Day 2).

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. 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 and at Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence starting on October 22nd and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online, requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, ward manager
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, second claimant to give evidence
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany

Other abbreviations:
WFTCHTJ – Waiting For The Conference Host To Join
ET - Employment Tribunal
DMH/H – Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital
CR/CF - changing room or facilities
IX - internal investigation
XX – cross examination

There is so much misgendering from SC, NHS barrister.

There's a complaint in the NHS by RH against at least some of the nurses.

This witness is defensive. It's a bit eekkk....

An internal NHS complaint is nothing to do with this case, so not relevant to this barrister's tribunal tactics.

The risk is the removal of the boundary.

Hi tone is rather hectoring with this witness. Like a school master telling off a pupil.

Its a very different dynamic here between the two of them. Despite most people making an effort it is at its heart a very adversarial process.

SC is school masterish for sure.

She is doing a great job and has some great lines - but I cannot live comment and TT doesn't have an accurate copy of it. 😊

She’s giving my typical strong northern woman vibes. Fed up with his nonsense 🤣

I think she is coming across really well now. Took a while to settle in.
The KC is sounding too aggressive to me at the moment.

I don’t blame her, especially if I was told to “reeducate and be open minded” in this situation! The mental toll of all of this can’t be underestimated.

Catching up with TT since the break
SC - turn in witness statement bundle p73
SC - para 18 section 'raising concerns' you say you talked about talking to your mother, you raised the issue with AQ?
CH - no
SC - I also mentioned to CG do you know when you raised with Mrs Hutchinson?
'I spoke to CG after off with anxiety 2024'

I agree - she's warming up

But I am not blaming her - God knows I couldn't keep a straight face that all this absolute rigamrole was happening because a whole rake of women wanted to allow a man to strip to his boxers and I and 25 others said enough and no more

A bit like Laurie Penny criticising people for seeing a TW’s penis in the WiSpa - you shouldn’t be looking! No, it shouldn’t be there!

TT
SC when in 2024
CH - I think Feb
SC thank you. CG is she your mgr?
CH Yes
SC first time raised? Feb 24
CH I told her I was involved in case, not major detail

SC not detail?
CH not sure how I worded it
SC eg did you give CG specifics about RH
CH can't remember
SC - para 20 top of next page - that you didn't raise with anyone else at Trust at that stage
CH no
SC your annual leave at time of letter, so didn't sign it?
Ch no

SC - para 22 meeting with CG and TA, what you are describing what you were told about what was said
CH yes
SC - you moved to cover in orth from 14 May para 23
Ch yes
SC you didn't attend 20 May meeting?
CH HR no, I was off for personal reasons

If you have cause for complaint you were a voyeur and if you weren't a voyeur then you have no cause for complaint.

Like she said: it was all about Rose, and how he felt.

SC - Vol 1 again. if we go to that, p118. same doc we were looking at earlier to be clear what you are complaining about. bottom of page - whether the Trust subjecting you to unwanted conduct, declining to address concerns. You are saying that failure of raising concerns that is a complaint you are making
CH what do you mean?

SC what is being said is that the failure to address concerns with sister quin was harrassment, it was done and was unwanted, and offensive environment. I know you are not a lawyer, but are you able to help us to understand what you think this is related to sex?

CH - doesn't answer
SC - if you can't answer we will move on.
[missed a couple of questions sorry]

SC - next one letter of meeting 20 MAy
CH HR meeting
SC yes
CH no
SC in terms of alt CR, you are now in orth from 2024,
CH no I was just helping out
SC I misunderstood that my mistake

I do think that it might have been a red herring to suggest that the official letters etc were harassment - it makes them sound as if they don't think the Trust's official process is reasonable, even when it's exactly what they'd say to anyone. In the context of course it's different and one understands why they were afraid/ furious, but it muddies the waters. I wonder if the CLC have indeed advised them to throw every allegation at it... But at the moment I'm not sure it was wise.

This argument only makes sense in a mixed setting like a nudist beach.

This was rather good by CH and stopped SC in his tracks:

SC you are still working? No disc procedings..?
CH not yet
SC quite a long way down the round
CH after court case
SC oh I see

As far as I’m aware RH complained of harassment to mgt. I think this is what the threatening letter earlier refers to, about them harassing him. I just believe the management is going to try and reverse it all.

SC - your statement p74. para 24. Inclusive changing room poster another allegation of harassment. Do you know who put up
CH no idea just came into work and it was there

SC - next page para 25 alt CR and para 26 you say 'those were not good alt to the main CR' not suggesting they are good but would you agree that the Trust was trying to do something, trying to address
CH - don't think we should have been given these, should be RH offered not us

SC in late June 2025, RH moved so it was safe for us to start using it.
CH yes
SC what was this risk RH posed to you
CH his presence in CR it was so uncomfortable, it was fear

SC you say it was uncomfortable but what was the risk
CH a man in the CR
SC would it make a difference if fully transitioned
CH I honestly don't know

SC - July - Oct 2024 during that time saw him how many times?
CH - quite often walking up and down the ward
SC frequency

CH every couple of weeks
SC so you'd see RH walking on to the day surg unit and when you say walking up and down
CH - he would just walk down turn where the bottom of ward, the orth office. He would just walk the ward.
SC for no reason?
CH yea

SC - every couple of weeks
CH yes not exactly sure
SC if you saw RH walking up and down then lots of others saw doing the same thing
SC but that doesn't seem to be the case does it [attribution corrected from CH to SC by TT in a later tweet]

So RH has been moved to a different changing room since the summer and the nurses have been able to move back? I wonder if he is in the small room that opens on to the busy corridor now. Or have they found somewhere more suitable for him

SC look at p118. That's not something you saw
SC [gives example of RH walking by self]
CH no didn't see
SC -early Oct 24 [gives example] that's you?
CH - yes that's what I am saying

SC - why have you only given this...
CH can't remember specifically all the times
SC are you the person who saw this in early Oct 24
CH not sure

SC last para of your statement. You were not a signat to letter and therefore you weren't approached [missed]
CH didn't receive anything
SC wanting to make sure, you are not making allegation about threatening letter
CH no didn't get any thing

[there is a pause SC and J looking at docs]
SC - no further questions
J - having a short break, need to consult with colleagues if any questions. Still under oath

The men's would do