"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

This is a standard part of SC's cross-examination. Before CH with the other claimants this got SC a sheepish acknowledgement that all was well. CH made the point that she was genuinely fearful that there could be retaliation.

SC - Bundle 3, p79. So sorry, thank you Bundle 3 not 1, volume 1 p79. So here we have letter, you recall? you are one of the undersigned
CH Yes [me, shouldn't this be JP?]
SC describes alleg behaviour 'RH has made no secret not on hormones trying to inseminate RH partner'

you say 'in early 24 Lisa and I were in the eye room, when we had a conv with RH with a member of theatre staff team. You say 2024, was this around the time the letter was written
CH before SC long time before

CH couple of weeks perhaps
SC 'I don't know the name or role, but he was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant. How did this discussion with staff member come about
CH don't remember how it started
SC did you start it?
CH can't remember

SC did that person over your and Lisa's conversation?
CH she contributed, that rumours were in theatres colleageues of her had been told, that he was trying for a baby and a sexually active man. That's what she told us.
SC you didn't clarify Rose had told this person or rumour

SC you didn't know if trure
CH not without asking Rose
SC did you ask Rose
CH no
SC vol 3 and letter, Rose has made no secret were you the provider of this info?
CH no

C - but you could have thought that htis was a rumour
CH - I believed the lady in the eye room.
SC - but you didn't know did you
CH but I was happy to take the info as correct why would she lie?
J - can I clarify, why did she lie? Depends on how she said it

CH she said that people were talking in theatres
J she didn't say that she'd got it directly from Rose
SC didn't it trouble you that you put your name to this letter>
CH - no because he is a sexually active man
SC did anyone ask Rose..?
CH - not sure

It’s a bunch of men deciding what should or shouldn’t upset a woman who has to undress in front of a man.

There's no legal distinction between one nonsense position and the other.

What makes these numpties think TW aren’t sexually active?

SC - go please to Bundle 1. P117. Confirm something with you. Here we have a list of allegations of harassment against RH. And in your case, you are saying RH use of CR is harassment. On the occasion she was in there, not clear, did RH take longer than necessary?

CH [again should be JP]- no
SC - didn't stare?
CH I turned my back
SC - back to statement please. P91. Para 9, in a moment. We have the letter, end March, not clear from evidence so far did you personally raise your concerns of RH in CR with any mgr prior to letter.

CH no but I knew other staff members had
SC meeting 20 May were you aware meeting recorded?
CH no but was happy that a precise recording was made
SC this is acceptable to secretly record

Ch perhaps not, but I was happy for it as we have a precise record about how many were uncomfortable
SC - but has anyone disputed that?
CH no
SC so didn't have to record to establish that
CH I didn't record meeting
SC have you read transcript?

CH - yes
SC - lets have a look at it - page 308. This meeting was attended by AM and TA, HR, yes
CH yes
SC - you hadnt spoke to them before
CH - no

SC - but you could raise your concerns with senior HR
CH yes but our concerns had been raised long before this
CH formally raised with Sister Quin but don't know if paper trail

SC did you get the impression that HR were trying to prevent or limit conversation?
CH - no I think she let people speak but...
SC and when you went into meeting what was outcome you hoped for
CH changing space for Rose and anyone who wants to use gender neutral

SC was it your expectation by end of meeting you would have assurance that Trust would address concerns.
CH TA said she would but it took a long time given raised in Dec before. HR had told us to be re-educated and open minded. Why should we be re-educated

J - q is going in to meeting was expectation that your concern would be addressed.
CH expected it be addressed urgently
J - what was expectation before meeting, that it would be addressed going forward
CH yes

It's generally assumed that members of sacred castes are celibate.

SC - transcript p335. Do you see a large speech from TA. [quotes from this - joint problem etc] that was exactly what we were hoping for
CH [again should be JP?] yes, but didnt' think it was going to be done urgently given it was raised in Dec and we were also told to be re-educated.

SC you couldn't tell how quickly at this meeting how quickly TA would act
CH correct
SC what I suggest is that you had no intention of it be settled
CH I expect it to be resolved early 24
CH - roses concerns dealt with in 2 weeks, ours took months

SC - no undue delay from this meeting?
CH our concerns on back burner, Rose's concerns dealt with much sooner.
SC as of May you didn't know this,
CH no but a long time to do something between January and May.

SC the concerns raised not by you by others had been raised by others Ms Quin and Gregory, Were they raised informally?
CH - don't know
J - isn't that what one of the W said?
SC - yes

SC - statement please. Page 92. Witness Statement. deal with particular allegation you make. Para 10, you say '8 July 2024...consent form....not sure what the form was...[reads more quickly] felt strange Rose came to ward to ask

SC do you know why Rose would come and find that form
CH no
SC you say Rose coming onto ward was harassment.
CH I don't say it was for me I feel he did come onto ward he came onto ward to ask for Consent form number 2, went to admin team to ask for it, t

here isn't a consent form number 2, never had that no children on ward.
SC - still anon?
J - still anon?
CH I believe I was still anon, but not sure if he knew

J - she didn't believe that Rose would know she was one who made a complaint. Can I clarify para 10? You said that it wasn't harassment of you
CH not me personally as still anon, but I though why was he here, is here here for other colleagues who he knows

J there to harass others who had gone to press
SC and were some of those present at the time
CH can't remember

I didn’t like that either.

Are they also going for the bananarama defence?

SC - move on from that to the investigation process and in your statement para 14 you refer to letter from SW. look at that Bundle 2 Part 1.

SC - page 619. A letter dated 1 August. What you say about it. [quotes the complaint RH] Do you see what it says.
J witness looking at wrong bundle.
SC I write to confirm complaint by RH Was RH entitled to raise concern

CH [again, should be JP?] yes
SC and trust would investiage?
CH yes
Whether well founded or not?
CH [nods]

SC - look at this letter, it says, I need to remind you about confidentiality [quotes] why is it you find this requirement what is your complaint about this? CH - just made me anxious that I might be in trouble with employer.
SC the requirement of confidentiality, what was

..wrong with that?
CH nothing
SC next page - completion etc..action etc why do you read this as a threat of disc action?
CH - I just the word discip my job might be on the line

SC - but some inappropriate behaviour should take place for a disciplinary. It's not a threat, is it?
CH I still felt threatened by the letter
J - which issue is this? G? Yes. Just looking at that you felt you may be subjected to discp?
CH yes

SC - in terms of resolution procedure, you as with others through solicitors, wished not to engage. Were you aware that your solicitors wrote on your behalf to say you wouldn't engage with process.

You did engage to extent as sent witness statement. Were you aware under Trust procedure, somebody could be rep by colleague or lawyer
CH read in letter
SC but what you say to us that this is harassment? Do you realise this is what you say
Not reallyl [missed

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

SC just checking the issue
J no need to apologise
SC no further questions
J we are going to have a break, not too long, finish by lunch hopefully. 10 minute break again.

Were you aware under Trust procedure, somebody could be rep by colleague or lawyer

I thought it was established yesterday that they'd been refused permission to have their solicitor as an observer, never mind rep, at the meeting.

Just shut up and strip you witches. Silence? You didn’t mind. Complaint? It’s the way you said it. How many times have we heard this..?

Agreed.

@Justabaker in the 3rd morning session, the references flip from JP to CH after this tweet - I know you can't edit the tweets but is it possible to correct the threadreader extract?
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1981675226808356953

TT 4th morning session
J I want to understand something you said, about the outcome, what you are hoping for from HR meeting. A 3rd space for Rose...' yes? So on those things, as for the 3rd space the one made available in July 24. that had been made avail for Rose, was that satifactory

CH [again think this should be JP?] - As long as CR for Rose
J don't object if near to yours
CH no

J - ref to gender neutral. What do they look like
CH Anyone who isn't comfortable with male or female.
J - you go to swimming pool used by anybody. Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? A large room with 30 cubicles
CH if everyone has own private space

TT: Apologies wrong witness initials, should be JP

[more questions about gender neutral changing rooms such as at swimming pools sound is poor] Have you previously been involved in formal grievance, litigation?
JP - no

J that completes evidence This afternoon we have Ms Grundy. I imagine not whole afternoon?
SC shouldn't think so
J TH can we start her off?

J - jokes about it being Friday and early finish. Breaks for lunch. 2pm start this afternoon.

Is the 'letter as harassment" angle been included because it is a tit for tat response by Rose.

(As well as highlighting the disparities between how quickly his was processed)

Lovely to have you back @MyrtleLion , I hope your broadband holds up this afternoon

CH - I was to the side, he couldn't see my breasts
NF - I want ask you about his usual pattern of being in the room, is that just one instance
CH - no his usual way
NF - now back to the plan, pg 2083,

The respondent seems to think that somehow looking in the right direction, or turning sop the man in the room can't see your breasts decreases the harm caused to the women using the changing room.

At times he seems to be describing a regency drama with the protagonists engaged in dance of carefully directed glances and gazes

How about “Rose” changes in the men’s and they daintily avert their eyes?

Perhaps the men can be issued with fans that they can use to protect their gaze?

"Rose" is a bloke and looks like a bloke, down to his boxers. So if he changed in the mens then unless he's changing into a bra and dress why should anyone even notice him?

Sorry, I need half an hour to complete a job application due today. Could someone please cover for me?

@maltravers It’s a bunch of men deciding what should or shouldn’t upset a woman who has to undress in front of a man.

Yes. There is a total failure by the tribunal so far to acknowledge women have human rights to bodily privacy, to understand the visceral reaction of women to a bloke being in a space we expect to be private from men when undressed and vulnerable, the fear we so often live with of male violence, voyeurism etc (because we don't know which men are nice, which are uncharged rapists) etc.

Christian Concern chose the KC for this case and know that many women, inc most Christian women- and women of other religions- will only ever have got undressed in front of male partners, and in certain medical situations- and it would devastate many women across the country regardless of beliefs who are private about their bodies to have been put in this abusive situation to strip with a bloke present just to access their job.

And women's boundaries and consent are just being ignored by this misogynistic group of blokes- it's making my flesh crawl. And so far not impressed by the Christian Concern KC, let alone the rest of them- including the judge.

Did they say they would resume at 2pm? The room is completely empty.