"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

From TT

SC - not suggesting he's spending longer than nec
MG not on the occasions I 've seen him
SC not initiated conversation or staring at you?
MG - no

From TT

SC - p49-50 witness statement para 8. 'soon after encountered summer 23 spoke to BH who took to AQ...BH the one I most trusted.' What you are describing to tribunal is a serious concern
MG very
SC why not take to manager?

From TT

MG at that time a few of us on ward talking about it, it was better coming from one person, not all of us bombarding AQ, Beth happy to do that.
SC when BH raising with AQ was it formal?
MG thought it was formal

SC what did you expect AQ to do?
MG to escalate it
SC doesn't appear she did that
MG I thought she had raised with matrons

26s
SC - what happened as a result
MG - it was ongoing and because of the trust's inclusivity they would take it higher.
SC - document added, 54a. No dispute just looking at date signed of August 24 by CG.

From TT

SC - [makes error on dates and corrects]
P 50 your statement about AQ, and Mrs H. Let's move to para 11 and the letter on 27 March, you signed?
MG yes

From TT

SC - do you remember this letter and what is says
MG yes
SC first para - the allegations about RH, second para, had anyone told you personally about RH stopping hormones getting partner pregnant

MG - with one of the healthcares in the eyeroom.
Not in my statement but I have heard
SC when are you talking about?
MG - about the time of letter
SC before or after
MG can't remember, maybe after
SC don't sound sure
MG not 100%

SC who are you with, can you tell me
MG I'd rather not
Heard there were concerns about Rose in CR, and it had been discussed quite a lot.
SC what was discussed?
MG Rose in CR.

From TT

MG she said there had been discussion about Rose using CR and that she had complained to manager but told she wasn't allowed to say that. That he was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant.
SC who had this person heard it from was it a rumour
MG - not sure

SC no idea if it's correct
MG when people ask not to be identified, they are frightened, how they are treated by the Trust.
SC how?
MG how our feelings aren't taken into account, the letters from the trust, girls frightened to talk

SC not frightened of media?
MG this is other members of staff frightened to say anything.

From TT

SC - you are prepared to put signature to letter that asserted this
MG yes
SC did anyone go to RH and say is it right?
MG - I don't think anyone had done that
SC isn't that fair
MG that's between his colleagues and himself, I dont know him to speak to

MG - I have never spoken to RH
SC - in your statement, go to p51, para 13, you tell us about CG ward manager and her meeting and about her and that she wrote quick notes. Volume 2 part 1. P346.

SC - is that what you were shown, the bullet points [quotes]
MG yes
SC you didn't have conv with Claire
MG Yes I did
SC when was this
MG Claire told me that she was coming on to the ward one of the matrons LW asked her to come into room

when she got into room there was a theatre mgr and some of the sisters from theatres. I think SW was there, not 100% but Claire felt she had been ambushed that was her words. She was shaken up and felt ambushed. Did Claire show you her own note

From TT

MG, not that she was shocked and only written a few words
SC meeting 20 May did you attend
MG yes
SC you were alright [secret recording]
MG yes

SC - she didn't say she was recording it
MG - I thought she'd mentioned in the kitchen and I knew it was being recorded.
J - how was it recorded
MG - On her phone I think
J where was phone
MG I don't know

From TT

..I can't remember
SC - you found meeting disappointing?
MG yes I did
SC at meeting 2 seniors from HR, up until the point of

letter 27 March concerns had been raised with managers, was this the first opp you had had to sit in room with HR and explain concerns.
MG I thought they were aware earlier but first time I had opp

MG - when TA said 'what is your problem' I felt she didn't realise having a man in a female only space was a problem and that concerned me. At one point she said 'I was in the forces and we didn't have the luxury of male and female, and i wouldn't have an issue.

I found that concerning.
I had a feeling there was no sense of urgency I would have wanted Rose removed immediately not in weeks. It had been 2 years
SC not 2 years
MG it had been for me

MG six weeks is a long time if you are using that changing room
SC - page 52, Trust's response.

From TT

You refer to alt locker room, you refer to it as makeshift alternative. But if that is correct, doesn't that show the Trust trying to address
MG - no, they moved us, that's not addressing problem. Addressing problem should be finding somewhere for Rose

SC - wasn't it the case that the Trust was trying to do something?
MG that depends on how you look at it, it was the easiest thing to do was to remove us, and that's what they did

At times SC is being rather sharp with the witness, imho.

From TT

SC - you complain about the lack of response in immediately after May meeting, why do you say this harassment?
MG what do you mean?
SC - go to Vol 1 p119. Bundle 1, part 1.

SC - the list of allegations, 'inadequate alternative CR June July 24' let us say that you are right and it's inadequate. But what I don't understand why this is related to harrssment related to sex

MG - us being moved of our CRs where we should feel comfortable by putting a man in the is harassment
Tribunal Tweets

J - you did ask before that, why is a lack of response harassment?
SC looking at the specific allegation, yes I put that to you broadly.

SC - it was too broad. I want to move on to specific matters. Looking at Para 22, the para you corrected. And this is letter from AM that you were shown, Vol 2 part 1.

IMHO too

I'm not watching I'm following TT, and so far SC doesn't seem to be achieving the gotcha he clearly wants to get, so maybe he's getting rather annoyed at the uppity women saying no and pressing the point that's he's a man! He can see he's getting nowhere!

From TT

SC - p541. Do you want a moment to remind yourself of this letter
MG yes please

SC - what's wrong with that letter?
MG to me, it comes across as threatening tone, not used to legal process, I'm a nurse, to receive something like this, it's very heavy handed thats how it feels. I'm a nurse not used to this. I was very upset.
SC you were upset
MG yes

SC - but first para, do you accept serious allegations have been made against RH in media
MG yes it's a serious issue. We didn't name Rose at this point, never used his name
SC but by June 24 the name Rose was in The Sun.
MG that wasn't by us though, we didn't give name

SC someone did
MG we didn't, he was anon. The Trust wanted it to be anon. The judge said it can't be.
SC from June 24, the press referring to Rose at this Trust, in articles which followed meeting with you that's correct
MG I don't know I didn't give the name Rose

SC - serious allegations by media
MG just facts
SC you don't know getting pregnant was a fact
MG that's what I believed was happening
SC what if Rose had gone to Mail, you'd expect Trust to say something to Rose
MG I thought what we said to press was fine

J - what about the reference to trying to have a baby, was that given to press
MG I didn't
J - do you know who did, any idea how got to press?
MG no

[some confusion about what docs J and SC looking at]
SC - thin file, the media file, page 5 please. This is Daily Mail 22 June and para 1234 'the nurses say their colleague had told fellow workers....sexually active biological male'
MG - you've answered your own q then.

From TT

SC - take this quickly, why don't you accept in an internal process need confidentiality
MG - it was affecting a lot of women and a way of shutting us down, affecting our lives for a year or so now, I don't think that's acceptable.

People thought they couldn't talk about it at all. That was the culture on the ward.
SC 'you should not discuss complaint.. with any other member of staff' that's what confidential refers to
MG people thought they couldn't talk about it at all. This was heavily worded

SC - even if this is what you thought, you didn't stop talking about it
MG no because I wanted the truth to be out there

From TT

SC - letter para Trust procedure, why did you view as threatening?
MG the wording, 'trust disciplinary' heavy wording of the letter.
SC - very last line 'please do not hesitate to contact me'
MG - at this point I found it all quite stressful and no couldn't do that (contact SW

MG is doing well! I do hope the KC for the claimants has done some homework on the issues as they affect actual women [mini tutorial from Naomi?] The questioning so far is so male in its style, it is making me feel queasy 😧

MG is doing brilliantly, speaking the truth and taking no prisoners!

From TT

SC - asked about solicitor's letter, informed of outcome. What you didn't do was participate in any interview?
MG yes
SC - were you aware of the fact that Trust has a res procedure?
MG no not really

SC does it surprise you?
MG I thought escalating by line mgr was correct thing to do
SC when you saw res procedure you can't have been surprised?
MG no
SC have you used?
MG no

SC did you become aware you could be accompanied by a TU rep or a colleague?
MG yes I became aware
SC but your position that it should be a lawyer
MG yes because we had gone down legal route

SC - one moment please just checking against issues that we have covered everything we need to

Me too
It's like a parade of the tropes, now the women have clacking tongues.

From TT

J have you finished
SC yes
J thank you very much

J going to have short break.

Ten minutes break

[Break]

From TT

SC - very last line 'please do not hesitate to contact me'

He's struggling now, surely? Using a polite phrase that's chucked on as standard without a backwards glance on many a professional letter, as proof that MG was somehow in the wrong for not taking them up on their splendid offer 😂

I was taught in my first job, 35 years ago that "please do not hesitate..." was useless as it basically said "do not contact".

So they don't want the nurses to contact them.

This was on the bbc website!