"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

SS - I didn't file the forms, I wrote them,
NF - you say you wrote the forms, then what happened to them,
SS - I handed to management, who would file
NF - thank you, do you remember be interviewed as part of Trust RP?
SS - yes
NF - you signed a record of the interview
SS - yes
[NF - directs ET to bundle]
NF - a declaration with your signature, confirms correctness, do you stand by that today
SS - yes
NF - thank SS
J - now SC will have qs for you
SC - no, I don't have any qs,
J - well, that completes your evidence SS, you can disconnect

I must say, Newcastle Tribunal’s CVP set up is great.

Yes, I wouldn't be happy with this either. What a male is or isn't doing is irrelevant to whether a female changing room should be open to males. I really resist this notion that there is some sort of spectrum of womanly behaviour that would have any bearing on this.

TRAs want the waters to be muddied in this way.

I do like this Judge trying to put witnesses at ease, he has a sense of humour. I recall last week when one witness said the CR wasn't comfortable and somewhere they'd stay longer than necessary, he compared it to the Away Team dressing rooms at Arsenal.

Me too. I think he’s great.

I agree. But it looks like they might run out of witnesses today. Imagine that!

I’ve never seen the like of it!

This is a very efficient court and some very capable counsel. It’s a pleasure to watch after reading the shenanigans from the respondent in Fife!

Agreed. It's a manufactured fuss. If you have a young heterosexual married couple, the information or speculation that they are trying for a baby is possibly the least surprising thing you could say about them. Really, who cares? In this instance it is only said to matter because Rose claims to be female, but given that Rose hasn't had any surgery or made any effort to present as a female in any way, the news that Rose may be trying for. a baby hardly makes any difference.

I am finding the questions about whether this chap was trying for a baby totally daft- a red herring. Who cares? I know there's been some evidence about it being relevant as he is sexually active with women (some people in general still think erroneously that men who say they are women are gay) so even more intimidating for the women getting undressed, but still.

He is a man, he shouldn't have been in the womens' changing room as it is degrading and humiliating for the women, and a breach of their bodily privacy, and illegal. Glad I'm not a lawyer- I haven't the patience. I just want to tell the NHS managers to get a grip on reality and stop enabling the abuse of women!

we cross posted, obviously thinking similar things!!

I particularly liked how he introduced the remote witnesses to the relevant people in the room, and had the camera directed onto them in turn. This would all be laid out to see for a witness in the room of course.

If I became aware a colleague or acquaintance were trying for a sprog I'd wish them nothing but the best.

Eta I doubt I'd say anything to them though, that would be weird.

I agree, and I liked the way SS put it. She said that had no animosity towards him, generally, she didn’t know him well.

The issue was that he was a man in the ladies changing room.

It's to show the validity of his complaint against the nurses which, if I recall correctly, is the basis for at least part of the claims made by the nurses against the NHS Trust. So by showing RH's complaint was reasonable, and that the NHS Trust handled it properly, this undermines part of the nurses claims.

From TT

[unclear discussion between SC & J, breaking up on CVP]
J - now, Lisa Lockey, followed by Jane Shields,
SC - Well, I can spin out my exam of LL, but I'm not sure that would be appreciated
J - well let's have a break, back at 11:40, we will hear from LL, and then discuss what we do after.
NF - yes.
Morning session part one ends.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1982738518486192337.html

At this rate it looks like SC will start with his witnesses tomorrow.

With regard to the "inclusive" poster

Discovered a FOI request where the Trust stated "The Trust does not know who designed or mounted the poster, it was not approved through any official trust communications processes."

Also "A paper has been prepared in draft for the Trust Board at the end of July and provide summary of the media coverage in relation to this case. The following are extracts from that draft paper reference the poster:

There have been two peaks to coverage, one when the story was initially shared with the Daily Mail and then when images of a poster which had been put up in the department were shared. After some initial interest, the topic faded away until Christian Concern shared a leaked image of an 'NHS inclusive workplace poster' in CDDFT changing rooms on Twitter. This brought back the debate and led to increased negative and hateful comments, as well as criticism of the Trust and its policy."

Not being on Twitter I dont know if the comments were "hateful" but I feel this is suggesting any adverse comment was "hateful".

I'm guessing the Supreme Court ruling has also led to a change of tactics from the respondents although perhaps this is just more normal for ETs.

As the judge introduced himself as EJ Sweeny I was able to google him. He seems to have some feel for how women can be made uncomfortable in the office https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2023/passport-office-worker-loses-unfair-dismissal-claim-stalker-behaviour/

@lcakethereforeIam · Today 11:33If I became aware a colleague or acquaintance were trying for a sprog I'd wish them nothing but the best.

Well usually. But it may depend if they are men acting on a sexual paraphilia who want to force women/ girls to take part in their fetish. If it's a bloke who disregards the consent, privacy, dignity and safety of female colleagues, including women/girls who have experienced CSA, it raises safeguarding concerns - as on the Children of Transitioners' website.https://childrenoftransitioners.org/

I’ve been out of the loop a decade but if it’s S Sweeney he was a barrister on the NE circuit a long time and was very highly thought of.

From TT

New Abbreviations:
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
LL - Lisa Lockey, claimant

We resume.
J - *calls LL to affirm.
LL - *does so
J - might want to organise files.

NF - turn to pg 54, see your statement, last page your signature.
LL - yes
NF re read?
LL - Y
NF - true?
LL - y

Clearly the respondents’ witnesses are going to take a while.

That is the difference between Margaret Gribbon (SP's solicitor) & NC compared to Christian Concern.

I speculate that the 'trying to get partner pregnant' chat did originate from RH, it's the kind of gross chat that a person like RH might (over) share with a mate and that would spread like wildfire, just to delicious not to pass on, the TW is looking to make a baby.

If they can't find somebody who heard him say it - then I agree it's a big problem for the Cs. Not sure how it impacts the Tribunal or will it be the subject of a separate disciplinary by the Trust after.

I do come back to the point that there was a man in their changing room.