"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

AT - yes. Yet Miss Grundy didn’t get a letter at all.
NF - (reading from letter) a right to raise concerns but not to raise allegations against other colleagues in the media

AT - the investigation hasn’t yet occurred so I didn’t know what was accurate . I acknowledge their freedom of speech and concerns about issues in the trust.

AT - but I didn’t think it was appropriate to raise in the media. I didn’t read everything, the amount of interest was vast.

NF - you’ve drawn a distinction.
AT - in our policy it may result in disciplinary action. Making them aware we would need to investigate

NF - to be clear , when you wrote the letter you didn’t give any thought to the impact on them?
AT - I always consider the impact on any individual before sending a letter

Priority was to shut them up as talking to the press endangered Operation Kick into Long Grass.

TT
AT - I always consider the impact on any individual before sending a letter

But not when drawing up policies.

Or sending letters to unrelated parties

Exactly - he's not acknowledging that the whole reason they went to the press in the first place was because the Trust were dragging the resolution process out interminably.

AT - I was alerting colleagues that some of the behaviour was potentially a breach of the policy.
J -we’ve got the point - a difference between trust and individuals in the press

AT - it was playing out in media not within the Trust
NF - the claimants believe they’re right about a biological male in F CR.

This worries me too. I understand how tempting it is to comment on what we ourselves are witnessing, and I think we actually should be able to comment freely, but we don’t have the court’s permission to do so. It potentially gives TRA’s or the Trust ammunition to ask the tribunal to withdraw remote viewing.

'What do you think that the impact on the claimants would be?'

AT - they raised the claim before resolving within the trust framework
NF - Letter this is Morgan Smith writing 29th May about resolution procedure, 2nd day after media.

AT - in my statement I make it clear - until July 2024 MS previous HR director. It was only when he went off ill that my involvement more.

So 2 people left/retired or were ill fairly soon after this case hit the mainstream media.

I think it's fine to comment on how a witness is coming across on the basis of the evidence that has been tweeted, but we mustn't anticipate TT reporting.

It wasn't meeeeee!

It was meeee

I am now restraining myself.

I agree.

NS - This process could have begun many months earlier
AT - March /April was first time I got across. Before that informally colleagues were trying to resolve.

J - in fairness to the witness he’s saying there’s a meeting, then the media, then couldn’t be dealt with informally.
NF - the informal stage had been met in 2023

I have heard that men wouldn’t abuse these policies, therefore men who say they are women should be let in to women’s spaces. This is incorrect.

When I have been researching toilet incidents, there have been men who use ‘I am a woman’ when in the ladies. I don’t think anyone, including transgender people, would believe these men were transgender.

I don’t normally post individual cases (in case it upsets anyone) but this one mostly discusses the man who is a paedophile. It’s relevant as a sexual assault then toilet incident happened in 2022 in a Durham shopping centre so was in the news local to the nurses. This is a quote from 2024: “When challenged with what he is doing in a women's toilet he said: 'Just chilling'. He then said he was there as he identified as female." (Putting on a high voice)

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/paedophile-secretly-filmed-women-public-28737673

Are hospitals bothered about managing voyeurism under their policies? Voyeurism is a male crime. All voyeurs in prison are male. Voyeurism and other sexual crimes are highly linked.

Creating new mixed sex spaces compromises health and safety. Creating new completely private enclosed individual spaces compromises health and safety. Why do women have to be compromised - can’t we be thought of first?

We're nearly up on the estimated hour for AT. Will J intervene to keep things on track?

What the flip is this bloke doing here? Was he summoned by the Cs or is he the Trust’s choice to represent HR?

When it came to shutting up the nurses and making the much larger problem go away - as opposed to addressing the original problems of shared changing rooms/alternative facilities - he's suddenly a lot more focused and proactive.

Funny that

Me too.

Surely he should have worked out the build up to this before he started, so he would be in a position to answer questions ON BEHALF OF the Trust. surely he's paid to at least be able to do this? All this 'It was before my time' bollocks.

Anyone else having trouble getting in to observe today? I'm still waiting.

The latter.

AT - Morgan Smith invoked stage 2 of procedure because no long an opportunity to resolve informally. Following a meeting TA and others stage 2 was invoked.

J - is it part of the C’s case that invoking stage 2 is part of the detriment? The delay and reasons for delay. I wonder where it fits in.