"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

Define ‘fully transitioned’.

Sorry for thread jumping response @maltravers Trust did (eventually) set up another women's changing room. Though it was inadequate for various reasons.

I do wish the British would just talk about male genitalia.

Similar with some of the news headlines yesterday about trans sitting in boxers (somehow the tight bit dropped off).

It sounds like the objection is to a trans identifying biological women wearing boxers.

If noone believes me I did actually have to explain that yesterday to someone.

From TT

J: We are going to have an expert witness tell us why safe spaces are important, dignity and privacy. Main concern - correct me if wrong - was maleness?
BH: Yes - poses a threat to women I would say.

J: So where is the risk if RH fully transitioned?
BH: Men are still stronger, and you can't change sex. The fear factor still there - voyeurism still a risk. No way to know what a man's intentions are.

J: You say, still risk
BH: Absolutely.

J No more Qs. Any re-exam NF?

NF: Yes a little.

NF: [ref] Sorry - wrong ref - will come back to that while solicitor looks for it.
NF: Moving on. We have 2 mtg transcripts, Feb and May 24, where were the meetings held, was either in the room shown on the plan we looked at, with the one-person changing cubicle?
BH: Yes was used for the May one

NF: We have found the right ref [gives]. Or have we.
NF: [ref] now we have it. Email from Lindsay Watson - says not sure things will get any further, but says have been approached by more women from different team. Were you aware of the other team?

BH: Yes I had heard of another member of staff, I believe she was asked to change elsewhere

I have to stop there. Drugs issued and I'm about to go home.

At last, enjoy

Finally!

Didn't hear that about the expert witness, so thanks, Myrtle. I wonder who?

😂😂😂😂

I'll pick up for a while:

TT

J: [asks for clarification] Was this about RH, the other concerns? Or other staff member
BH: No it was re RH
NF By team you mean?
BH: Different department - not DSU.

MyrtleLion, you have earned yourself a slob on the sofa with a cuppa, chocolate hobknobs and one of those trashy waiting room magazines featuring MY NEW TOYBOY TWO-TIMED ME WITH THE WINDOWCLEANER type stories.

TT

NF: [Ref] this is correspondence about meetings re resolutions procedure, being accompanied, you had asked for solicitor. Was that matter - solicitor attending - something you entrusted to the solicitor.
BH: Yes

@MyrtleLion Hope you can actually rest when you are home - thanks for your work on this x

Don't know if it's already been mentioned here, but the Sun newspaper is running a poll today on "whether trans staff should be allowed in female locker rooms"

TT

NF: We can see here a letter from your solicitor about this?
BH: Yes
NF: And you knew of the correspondence?
BH: Yes

😂

Just an observation, there is a veritable forest of paperwork in the bundles for this trial, several very full lever arch files. I'm not surprised there is a lot of back and forth on finding the right documents for the right point. But there has to be a better way to handle all these documents, surely?

From TT

J: [asks for clarification] Was this about RH, the other concerns? Or other staff member
BH: No it was re RH
NF By team you mean?
BH: Different department - not DSU.

NF: [Ref] this is correspondence about meetings re resolutions procedure, being accompanied, you had asked for solicitor. Was that matter - solicitor attending - something you entrusted to the solicitor.
BH: Yes

NF: We can see here a letter from your solicitor about this?
BH: Yes
NF: And you knew of the correspondence?
BH: Yes

J: It says 'represented' here?
NF: Yes accept that. Just wanted to confirm witness aware of correspondence.

NF: You were asked about your participation and then non-participation in resolution procedure. You said 'it was all clear from the letters'. Did you mean the March letter with 26 signatures?
BH: Yes
NF: We will look at that [ref]

NF: Your proposal is here - you ask for the simple solution, as immediate response, is for RH to change elsewhere?
BH: Yes
NF: We will look at the resulting report [ref]

TT

J: It says 'represented' here?
NF: Yes accept that. Just wanted to confirm witness aware of correspondence.

TT

NF: You were asked about your participation and then non-participation in resolution procedure. You said 'it was all clear from the letters'. Did you mean the March letter with 26 signatures?
BH: Yes
NF: We will look at that [ref]

From TT

NF: First time we have gone to this in evidence.
J: Yes [clarifies that can be discussed even so]
NF: We see names of investigating team, dated April 25. Your letter had been over a year earlier
BH: Yes
NF: Concerns are listed - include, use of women's changing room by RH biologically male.
NF: And the final outcome report [ref].

TT

NF: Your proposal is here - you ask for the simple solution, as immediate response, is for RH to change elsewhere?
BH: Yes
NF: We will look at the resulting report [ref]

TT

NF: First time we have gone to this in evidence.
J: Yes [clarifies that can be discussed even so]
NF: We see names of investigating team, dated April 25. Your letter had been over a year earlier
BH: Yes

Sorry @IDareSay I duplicated

TT

NF: Concerns are listed - include, use of women's changing room by RH biologically male.
NF: And the final outcome report [ref].