"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 3

[AuthorisedCat]

Link to Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, evidence from KD (Day 1) and BH (Day 2).

Link to Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5432103-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-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 was thinking the same @nauticant

Not contemplating the day with joy - as we say in this house.

NF - page 401 the copy of the proof
AT - there was something sent in the body of an email yes
NF - the article as it was published on 26 May was not in the bundle but here’s a copy. What this article does is it focuses on the imminent legal claim and what it will be about
NF - it doesn’t name Rose or others

aargh I'm stil WFTCHTJ

NF - what you’re been sent doesn’t name them. After that was published, another newspaper published
NF - that’s the article 26 May that names the Trust. Go to your statement para 32 . You refer to this ‘the Mail on Sunday didn’t identify the Trust’
AT - the Mail on Sunday published them.
NF - what is that based on.
AT - they were trying to keep a handle on it so from that weekend media went crazy
NT - none of that answers my question

I’ve been kicked/dropped out, eurgh.

Back WFTCHTJ

‘I’m encouraged by your intervention’

I’m going to start saying this forthwith!

AT getting rattled, shaking head and raised eyebrows.

The Clerk at this venue is great.

Who was the snooty one, who hated all of us??

AT - I’ve no idea what happened .
NT - you’re making a serious allegation
AT - not an allegation
J - what issue does this relate to?

NF - sorry judge I’ll move on. The first time Rose’s name mentioned is November 2024 ?

‘That weekend media went crazy’. Oh dear, if only someone (I.e. the Director of HR) had their finger on the pulse, instead of dismissing the women’s concerns as not worthy of attention.

so he decided to retire but still got called to tribunal? Smart move mate.

Hopefully will be let back in soon.

Last thing I heard was ‘that doesn’t answer my question’ and didn’t even get to see the reaction 😩

What was the allegation?

AT - where is Rose’s name sorry.
NF - that was the first time some of the claimants (inaudible)
J - I’m taking it this is a press cutting. Without checking I thought the legal claim refereD to RH?

NF - para 54-56. P 16. Remind yourself. That wasn’t challenged on her evidence and you’re not in a position to say?
AT - no

It was Noel Scanlon, I'm not sure if he is giving evidence or not.

AT's 'milk' bottle has reappeared and there's lots of nervous swigging.

NF is amusingly smooth with some of his interactions with the judge. Just shy of being too much.

I don't want to be that poster, but please can we all remember not to post anything from the proceedings that is not either directly copied from TT or a reaction to the tweets copied here. We do not have permission to report live.

NF - turn to another letter. That was sent to several claimants named in the media. JB, TH, BH, LL.

NF - it does matter because points made which allegation
AT - 4 claimants , in my statement.
NF - it went to different, overlapping addressees. (inaudible) and MG seem to have been overlooked?

'Piss up' and 'brewery' come to mind.

NF - go to bundle 145. That’s the same letter, sent to Miss Bradbury. Even though she wasn’t in the article. You sent this letter to someone to whom it doesn’t apply at all. Does that bother you?

It may be on its way....

Wonder what is happening with the request for statements etc

What's this bit about onlookers? I'm not following. Is it about how Rose's name got into the press?

NF - go to bundle 145. That’s the same letter, sent to Miss Bradbury. Even though she wasn’t in the article. You sent this letter to someone to whom it doesn’t apply at all. Does that bother you?

AT was panicking about his own job after the media shitstorm and was firing off letters to all and sundry to try and shut it down.

This has the whiff of a Twitter Storm to me