"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

It's not a patient confidentiality issue, I agree, but I think it could still count as private medical information.
And yes, the Trust probably will try to discipline the nurses.

Which nurses though? If they only punish the nurses who raised a complaint then that would be victimisation.

27Victimisation
(1)A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because—
(a)B does a protected act, or
(b)A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.
(2)Each of the following is a protected act—
(a)bringing proceedings under this Act;
(b)giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act;
(c)doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;
(d)making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.
(3)Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.
(4)This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual.
(5)The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule.

It isn’t a patient confidentiality issue.

It’s the fact so far no witness has given evidence RH actually said it to them. RH may have said it but it is also feasible that it was made up or came about by two separate things being put together.

For example
a) Someone asks a colleague is RH taking hormones? Colleague responds I don’t know but it doesn’t look like they are. = Gossip is RH is not taking hormones.

b) someone asks a colleague/speculates are RH and wife planning to have children? Colleague response I don’t know they could be like any married couple = Gossip is RH is TTC

a) + b) = RH is not taking hormones as TTC.

This gets spread like wildfire and ends up in the letter of complaint and the press.

In terms of RH's complaint, the problem for the nurse complainants isn't gossip of a personal nature relating to a colleague, it's what so far looks like gossip ending up in the press and those that caused that to happen being readily identifiable.

who are today's witnesses?

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1982794418634510382

Or try this for more other linked tweets:

nitter.net/tribunaltweets/status/1982794418634510382#m

But to an extent it's out of their hands as to how the media picks things up and runs with it.

There will be so many internal issues that will be minuted in all sorts of workplaces and available publicly that will have nuggets of info like this that could be blown up publicly.

To make it all the fault of the whistle blowers every time is not right.

Good morning everyone, daily reminder for any new readers:

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.

WFTCHTJ I tried to join yesterday but no luck and was unable to join earlier in the week. Hopefully I'll be let in today. What time is the start please? I assumed 10 but nothing so far.

TT
(I'm at my desk for the next half hour so I'll post TT)

J It's Jane Shields next. We've received amended partic of claims. Permission granted.
SC We're a day ahead but wil keep u informed
NF We have Prof Phoenix able to come on the 7th but she has a flight booked for the 10th. We may slow down as we may not be able to fit her in

NF I've put tog a bundle of guidance which is to help the cross examination
SC I have received it but wonder ??
J It depends on how u put things to the witneses
J Play it by ear? Let's proceed with JS

I'm not let in yet, but its definitely started going by TT

TT

J [affirms JS] Take a seat. Please adjust the camera. [takes JS to her WS and describes the various bundles]
NF Go to your WS. Is this yours?
JS Yes
NF You want to make a couple of corrections. You first met Rose in 2019. And 2021 should be 2020 in para 5, and 3 yrs in para 8

TT

NF With those corrections are these true?
JS Yes
NF On p387, y'll find a plan of the CR. Can you point to where yr locker was? [points]
J Next to Tracy?
JS 6 lockers to the right of hers
NF On p116, [reads re mtg RH in the CR] How often did u come across Rose?

Yes! JS had a conversation with RH and he said he was trying to father a child.

TT

JS Cld be 3-4 days over a 7 day period
NF In the following para, u say u knew he was trying to father a child. How did u know?
JS We'd had that convo w Rose
NF Who?
JS lists multiple names and I asked Rose
SC This convo, when did it take place?
JS During a night shift

Still not in. Is anyone else having to wait too?

Bugger think I have my cases and links muddled up. I don't have access to this one - it was the Kelly v Leonardo one on 24th :-( My bad.

That changes everything.

I am so pleased there is at least one witness who had it direct from
RH. Previous TT said there was no witness.

TT

JS [searching WS for date] Prob his second year as a student SC 2020? Yes
SC Names
JS Pam Tweedy, 2 scrub staff
SC who did u tell? JS No-one partic except my family. I spoke to Pam
SC Any other colleagues outside the actual convo?
JS No

Well, that's great, she came across as plausible in that useful piece of evidence and supported the witness from yesterday who said RH was pretty open about his private life.

TT

SC Thank you
J Thank you
SC. Can I check with my colleagues if we have any Qs for you.
We'll just have a very short break to discuss with them [reminds re oath].
Let's have 10 minutes.

It was also worth noting that SC pushed her gently against JS's evidence but then left it alone.

We're on a break, they probably won't let you in until everyone's back.