"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

TH - he had no reason to be on the ward, if using as a shortcut, would have gone through the doors,
SC - are you sufficiently open minded that if RH gives a reason, there might be a reason for RH to be there
TH - I can't think of a reason.
SC - that's all from me.

Gosh, that's cross-examination done. There are two more claimants and 2 more days before Wednesday when cross-examination of the respondent's witness is scheduled to start.

I have to be honest RH had every right to raise a grievance about the gossip that RH was trying for a baby.
As I’ve said previously if no witness heard it directly from RH and there is no evidence RH said it; then the gossip and putting it in the media is bullying and harassment.

From TT

J - bear with me one moment to see if I have any qs

J - any re-exam NF?
NF - yes, the episode with RH on the ward, had you seen RH before that
TH - only when he was a student, not seen him since
NF - you were asked if RH had another reason to be there, if using as a shortcut, you say would have gone through double doors,

NF - [holds up plan] is this where the double doors are
[discussion of routes, etc]
NF - we've looked at this plan and talked with wits several times, what goes on in these corridors
TH - patients on trollies, staff, going to various rooms, its a busy area.
J - thank you

I agree with that@Harassedevicteeand wonder what the consequences might be.

From TT

that completes your evidence. You may take your seat.
J - I don't know if we have ST but I can see SS, can we take SS, any problems with that
SC - none for me
J - SS, can you hear me
SS - yes
J - is it Miss
SS - yes,
J - I'm EJ Sweeny, you can see I'm sitting with 2 members

Who's this witness?

Siobhan Sinclair.

Thanks

Siobhan Sinclair.

From TT

J - I'm justing going to explain this to you, it must be like arriving at a party after everyone has had a few drinks, now moving the camera so that you can see the room, focus on NF [introduces self] and then to SC [introduces self] and redirects camera to me.

Gosh this is a bit awkward

She originally said she was pulling out, is that right? But has changed her mind.

She should have her camera on, i think.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1981289752763515346

From TT

J - you're going to affirm, please repeat these words after me, [reads out affirmation, repeated by SS] Thank you. Will now redirect camera to NH so he can introduce your evidence.
NF - you have your WS, dated 26 Oct 2025,
SS - yes,
NF - 4 pages long
SS - yes, only have on
mobile, but 4 pages
NF - statement of truth on bottom of last page, underneath we see your name typed, can we treat as e-signature
SS - ?
J - we'll treat that as yes, not concerned
NH - [has witness afirm truth] now turning you over to SC

From an HR perspective I would wait for all the ET evidence to be finalised and possibly wait for the judgement.

Then I would go back to basics - what was RHs grievance about, investigate properly and then make a decision.

If it’s proved RH didn’t say it then possibly it is gross misconduct, particularly to have told the media.

The case was strong enough without the gossip - there could be real fallout from this.

🤞there is a witness who says RH told them.

It does make you realise how strong Sandie’s case is.

I suspect that Sandie Peggie had excellent legal advice telling her all the hoops she needed to jump through before filing her claims to the ET.

From TT

SC - you retired from Trust in Spring 2022, in your WS, you say 'shortly before I retired, I was told by friends of RH in theatre' and they you repeat what they said
SS - yes
SC - did you confirm that was true with RH
SS - ???
SC - did you ever check with RH that it was true
SS - I didn't have a r'ship with RH, where that question would have been appropriate, asking him that question would have been quite impertinent
SC - thank you, you say that info travels around the dept very quickly, you drop it into a pool and it circulates back to you by end

At least one of the nurses said they didnt provide the information to the media. They also said they tried to make it anonymous. Not convinced an investigating officer would ever be able to show who provided the information to the press given that it was common knowledge in the hospital. Could have been another one of Rose's colleagues.

From TT

of shift
SS - yes, but I can't say when that info was released into the depte
SC - you say 'the issue is about a man in the CR and you didn't want to make it personal against RH' is that still your position
SS - I didn't want to make it personal with him but he's a man and
shouldn't be in the women's CR
SC - no more qs
J - any more qs NF
NF - no
J - thank you, I'm glad you didn't have to come down from Scotland for 5 minutes of evidence, you're finished now,
SS - thank you very much Judge
J - I think it's time for a break, but do we have ST,
ST - hello,
J - is that ST
ST - yes,
J - does intro, have you been online listening
ST - yes
J - could you hear how SS was giving evidence
ST - yes
J we don't need to do intros again, you will affirm?
ST - yes
[J takes through affirmation]

From TT

J - thank you, camera will redirect to NF,
NF - can you hear me
SS - yes I can,
NF - there's quite a delay on the line, I will try to allow time, you used to work at Rs as a ward housekeeper
SS - yes
NF - what band is that
SS - 2
NF - you retired in Oct 2023, how long service
SS - yes, 27 years,
NF - you were the wellbeing officer
SS - yes
NF - including with RH and other Cs
SS - yes
NF - what was the process
SS - done every year, but we could have other convos during the year,
NF - did you notes those other convos

The gossip around whether RH and her wife were trying for a baby surely is a red herring, given that they are a married couple comprised of biological male and biological female. A reasonable person expects a sexual relationship between a married heterosexual couple and the natural consequences of that is conception ? After all no contraception is fail safe. Surely this is just a given if RH is a biological male married to a biological female. Why would that be a compromising Rose’s personal dignity?

From TT

SS - yes, there was a specific form
NF - countersigned by CG?
SS - yes
NF - and did you ask the person if they were happy for you to relay to management
SS - if they wanted me to ask, I could
NF - do you recall having a convo with KD about RH in CRs
SS - I recall the convo, but I don't recall if I documented
NF - you had a whatapp exchange with KD
SS - yes, had one recently and there were early exchanges
NF - [refs convo in bundle for ET], so when you had a convo, then you filed a form, and recorded it

Right, then that's Sharron Trevarrow done. They're whizzing through at the moment. More time for the respondent's witnesses.