"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 wonder how he will try to square the foot dragging over the nurses’ complaint with the speed and alacrity the Trust showed in
picking up RH’s complaint. With difficulty I imagine.

J - Rose complaint and this obviously linked.
NF - there’s a distinction between the complaint and airing in the media.
J - I don’t think any disagreement

NF - March 25. Matters encountering Rose on the ward, in DSU. Adding that would cause further delay. Your decision to add in?
AT - I wanted other matters added in formally asked to address.

I wonder if they will touch on whether they were getting any advice from legal even if they don't disclose what it was. Another example of it wasn't me, guv.

Well it's not his fault, it was the investigator who has her own independent business and again it is not his fault.

Like Sandie Peggie. The Trusts totally underestimated the determination of predominantly working class women, and that they actually had support and access to funds. Their patronising classist and misogynistic attitude is what has got them here.

NF - we’re now 11 months on , it was supposed to take one month.
AT - a lot of work and it became a larger group of people as Ms Newton and Ms Williams. Every time there was a meeting, others up to maybe 45, needed to be involved.

This whole debacle brings to mind the poem 'For want of a nail', but rather 'for want of a 'no''.

NF - Report completed end April 25. Took so long these tribunal proceedings overtook it. Chief concern, Rose biologically male being allowed to use the female CR.

This poem, if anyone feels like bastardising it

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, the battle was lost;
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

So there’s now 45 nurses who object! And they still haven’t sorted it. In any normal unionised workforce, the union would have balloted for strike action.

That was a nice argument by NF. Effectively that the investigation was set up in a way that meant it wasn't fit for purpose, ie to deal with the nurses' complaint.

I wonder how many nurses the cost of this tribunal would have paid for🤔

Wasn't the problem that the (captured) Union chose to support "Rose" and the nurses were left without representation?

NF - the concern is upheld.
SC - is that an issue
NF - so after a year, the concern concluded that was factually correct, but was part of the trust’s policy. And the policy was out of scope of the investigation.

NF - so we conclude the central complaint was not addressed. Utterly failed to deal with the central complaint raised.

I love the fact that they set up their own union (thus exposing how the traditional unions are doing women over in this issue).

What I like about that argument is that it undercuts the Trust's case that the nurses jumped the gun. Had they not the nurses would still be waiting.

So the complaint by Rose still hasn't been resolved either?

Yes. I would appreciate seeing the union on the stand explaining themselves. Usual protocol is to have two different reps supporting each side. Here, the nurses didn’t even get the dignity of a reply from the union.

NF - some complainants had withdrawn. The complaint also raised by RH was not addressed. Net effect after 12 months was a reduction in the number of complainants.

Have I got this straight. It took a year to merely confirm that there was indeed a man using the female CR and that his use of the CR was in line with Trust policy?

"not that I can recall"
"I wasn't involved in those telephone calls"
"the communications team were handling it"
"I did not make an allegation"
<shrugs>
"I hadn't appreciated that that was the case"
"I hadn't read or analysed any of the articles"
"I remember because that was my birthday" (it's all about me)
"I wasn't involved in the decision making at the time"
"it wasn't for me to set out questions for ix"
"nope"
"nope"
"Ideally this ix would be done in a month, but Miss Newton..."
"that's what you're telling me, yes"
"the ix parameters were not designed to question the policy"
"yes the claimants concerns were not addressed, but policy..."

In fact AT is more aggressive and confident today, must have had an extra espresso this morning. Missed noting a couple more shrugs, but <shrug>

I imagine this is one of the issues the nurses have in mind/refer to when they say about disciplinaries - “let’s see what happens after the tribunal though”. It’s hanging over their heads.

Astonishingly you've got that right.

NF - so we conclude the central complaint was not addressed. Utterly failed to deal with the central complaint raised.

This answer AT gave was this again.

J - we’ll have a break for 10 minutes

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1983462808604872897.html