"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

I think it is.

The questioning has been very narrow for most witnesses I.e.

• how they felt with RH in the CR
• the gossip about RH
• confirming which bits of the letter they agreed with
• confirming what their individual complaints are
• why didn’t they engage fully with the resolution process

My feeling is the Trust have now accepted the SC judgement and provided a 3rd space. The Trust seem to have followed procedures but timelines slipped ( they always do). I was surprised this case wasn’t settled before ET as it’s different to SPs.

SC It's unhelpful getting so late. As witnesses cant read before. These were printed out some months ago. J Seems instinctively true from t he witnesses pov. All far in cross exam but.. Helpful to SC to know which bits y'll use NF To explain, they've been relevant and I put
Show more

NF and printing diff in Newcastel. I've collated them over time J Shall we have another break and you let SC know which doc y'll use w Mr Thacker SC I'm happy w that and then we'll see where we get. It'd be useful to know which witnesses will use this NF 15 mins?

J Shall we say we'll check with you at half 11 and see if you're ready?

BREAK

On the issue of expert witness, she has been accepted by both sides as an expert and is therefore asked by both side to form an opinion based on information from both sides.

Sometimes the sides cannot agree on what instructions to give the expert which is when two are brought in.

So is independent. See the forensic expert in Peggie, it was suggested he was receiving instructions from the claimants legal team which was considered outrageous.

If that's the case then how things go will largely depend on the accounts by the claimants vs that by RH. At that point, the respondent would be harming their own case by not having RH appear to give evidence.

As far as I know, every witness so far has emphasised that their concern was that there was a man in the women’s changing room, with a clear statement to that effect from each and every one up until yesterday. That seems to make the SC judgement very relevant (IANAL).

I wonder if SC is aware that JKR is a very successful author of adult novels as well as children’s books? And I wonder why he seems to think that being a children’s author makes her true and legitimately held views of diminished merit? Fool.

So just a question of damages?

SC isn’t a fool. But he is paid to make the best possible case for his clients. I agree that that specific comment was more for theatre than being relevant. But theatre is part of law at times, to drive a point home. But no, I didn’t not like the undercurrent if misogyny from him there. I think less of him for it.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1983109061454471496.html

Quite. Let’s compare and contrast, shall we?

-Female person does womanly thing like writing for children: demeaning and casts doubt on character and intellect

-Male person does womanly things like wearing make up and going in the women’s changing room: laudable and above reproach

Not sure the theatrical point was worth it, SC.

Don't worry, the conversation re Jo Phoenix was a when not an if.

She booked for the 10th but if they continue at the current galloping pace they'll reach the stage of the evidence when they were expecting to call her on the 7th. Because she's flying in from the US if she can't be available early they may need to juggle witnesses, or take Friday off, so she can still appear on the expected date.

[Info sumarised from TT feed, I'm not watching.]

I am a bad mother. Both DH and I working from home today. I'm glued to this tribunal. Unexpected appointment appears in calendar (we'd completely forgotten). 15 minute warning for a hospital appointment for DS 10 minutes drive away.....

I've sent DH.

These tribunals change your life!

I bet SC is getting increasingly frustrated by his clever questions and little traps being batted away with confidence by lowly (in is eyes) nurses.

I mean, if he thinks the views of an immensely successful billionaire author, who happens to be female, are worth disparaging, he can’t think much of women with “only” nursing qualifications.

I do try not to think of the respondents and claimant's barristers as 'bad' and 'good' as they are only doing their jobs. But Mr Hochhauser for the Allison Bailey Case and Jane Russell for several cases have both been not very nice in comparison to Ben Cooper and Naomi Cunningham. This dude seems nicer at least but those little comments really soured my impression of him.

We return at 11.52 and anticipate R's first witness will be Andrew Thacker (AT), the trust's Director of Workforce and Organisational Planning. J Updates on the ?? NF We'll hear from Mr Thacker now until the afternoon. Then Tracy Atkinson. It's her daughters 18th today so would

SC be unfair for her to be midway betwn evidence. Plus they travel together. J How long will you be w AT? NF I said 4 hours so rest of the day. I try to be generous J So likely Miss Atkinson tmrw SC I'd like to call Mr Thacker please [affirms]

J [Settling in the witness AT] SC Full name AT Andrew Thacker SC [Confirms above job title. Confirms WS] SC In your WS p130, is ref to a letter to 4 of the Cs of July 15th [takes to new bundle]

I was lucky enough to attend this tribunal as an observer for a couple of hours and in person he comes across as quite pleasant and respectful which didn't previously come across to me from just reading TT. I wonder how his JKR comment came across in person? Can anyone viewing on the link give an impression?

This witness has a very red face. Not sure if he's too warm or what.

SC Is that the template to the letter yr referring to? AT Yes SC In para33 of yr WS, u refer to dignity at work policy. [new bundle] AT This is that policy SC In this section on definitions, what's relevant re this letter AT On p37 is a para re transphobic bullying

Yes, sometimes a passing remark can be very revealing. The slighting reference to JKR was one of those IMO.

It was throwaway, a comment designed to suggest lack of importance. He’s been an excellent advocate so far and this stood out for me as it wasn’t like his previous demeanour. It was casual mysogyny.

AT on p38, making unnecess ref to a persons private life is also relevant. Also possibly about general conduct. SC Back to the WS, p138 J [discussing heat in room] SC Ref to the transitioning at work policy? AT Yes [goes to new bundle p79]

Having just read TT, claimants amended particulars of claim yesterday, and judge has accepted this. the amendment is a claim under S22 of the EQA, which having flash read is about reasonable adjustments, and wether they are reasonable or not.

If that is correct SC is miffed and worried about the line of questioning of NF wandering in to defence witnesses being questioned about there understanding of the law.

Hence the reverence to the Supreme Court and JKR somewhat intemperate and irrelevant in any case.

NHS is responsible for RH conduct, in changing room which is the complaint now expanded to include it should not have allowed an adjustment that allowed RH in to the changing room in the first place.

So SC thinks goal post has been moved and was not covered in his cross examination.

IANAL is anyone on here a lawyer who can clarify this.

SC Within this policy are Appx beginning on p90. Can you say what is of partic relevance to the issues we're discussing? AT On p92, under use of gender specific facilities the 2nd para. SC One other Q arisinf from earlier evidence. BH said she had to endure kindness training cos of this

Witness now a nice shade of claret. loosen your tie man!