"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

Exactly. He is who they think is the best person for that job.

And even after they did that, the Director of HR didn't think it an important enough issue, to make sure he minuted and documented every fucking conversation he had about it after that.

It is such a bogglingly stupid decision that it's hard to swallow. Rather like the Welsh dog that ate all the impact assessments (and all the minutes of every meeting where they were discussed, every email that was ever sent on the subject, the commissioning of whoever ran it, the feedback from it...). But the impact assessment def happened, honest miss!

One has to wonder if decisions were made to not minute to avoid accountability, or whether such minutes might have been consumed by another passing terrier.

I'm having to duck out from this afternoon's session. Duty calls - got to do something to earn my salary - unlike AT!

I thought NF implied yesterday that the nurses complaint letter actually outlined the issue as clearly as:

1. there is a man in the women's changing room
2. this is inline with the trust policy
3. please review the policy because we think it is illegal for X,Y and Z reasons.

But they still didn't look at the policy but instead investigated if there was a man in the bloody changing room.

Ah. I think it was the lovely NF's legal brain that actually summarised it into three issues not the initial complaint letter.

Cut & Pasted from TT (thanks for all you do). Afternoon session 1 - 28th October

J - apols AT
NF - looking at the letter, there were 2 issues raised, use of CR by RH and behaviour? that RH presence was the common factor.
AT - y
NF - to deal with that there were 3 qu for Trust. 1. was it factually correct RH male was using CR 2. Had Trust
NF allowed it and 3 should Trust continue to?
AT - yes
NF - was a male using the CR, you knew this stage it was correct
AT - according to letter
NF - factually correct RH is male
AT - according to letter
NF - had had briefing, did it get you that far
AT - told RH was using CR
NF - and RH was male
AT - can't say, but that RH was using
NF - how long after briefing execs did you know RH was male and using CR
AT - unsure, role of the IX to look at facts. To determine whether or not concerns in letter could be substantiated.
NF - Is RH male and using the F CR
AT - yes
NF - didn't need an IX
AT - no
NF - 2nd qu, had the trust allowed it. When briefed, was it clear Turst had permitted?
AT - yes, it was in letter yes
NF - clear it was permitted under Trans in the workplace policy
AT - y
NF - was the policy correctly applied?
AT - as far as I'm aware Yes
NF - so the QU really is the 3rd. Should the Trust continue to allow this state of affairs, you nod
AT - yes
NF - only way would be to consider own policy, the Trust to, YOur dept?
AT - we'd play a role yes
SC - speak up please
J - yes please
NF - why didn't Trust do that?
AT - My team initiated a process that would allow us to better understand issues and determine whether the details were factual. Trust resolution process used when concerns raised.

Had something external - wow how did the evidence show AT was more incompetent than yesterday??

If he has any self awareness he would resign. But he lacks that no doubt, along with any shred of competence.

Also a lot of laugh out louds on the F&B colours - you clever lot

I've been skim reading the MN threads, and am not totally up on the timelines.
Have I understood correctly that the nurses complained, could see that trust was doing nothing, then went to press with details of individual and trust concealed?
Then press interest in the case built, resulting in identification of key parties ?
Now RH's name and picture are all over the media.
Of course the nurses should not have been exposed to this. But has the trust not breached a duty of care to RH, by not considering the long term consequences on him of being continued to be allowed to use a CR after 26 nurses complained?
I know that's not the point of the case, but it demonstrates that there are no winners when managers don't do their jobs.

A veritable exemplar of tit whoop.

It's easy for men to tit whoop.
For a well endowed woman it's an extreme sport!

I'm trying not to out myself, but I was called to a tribunal after I retired. (My behaviour wasn't in question.)

I was initially asked whether I would be prepared to make a statement in front of an official and a secretary/note-taker. I did so and was later called to the tribunal (but an internal one).

The two sides agreed that it wouldn't go beyond that, I believe - it would have cost too much money to go to court.

As a large woman I find that a bit offensive, does that mean I'm a man? I do wear men's clothes a fair bit (as women's don't often fit....)

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.

So because an ever growing number of (presumably female) staff kept raising issues the investigation took 11 months? Because the HR director can't possibly be expected to coordinate something as complex as a meeting with just under 50 attendees? After all an increasing number of unhappy staff is an excellent indicator for not tackling any issue with slightly more urgency. I am baffled at the Trusts logic.

What is the point of them paying this arse an inflated salary? He doesn’t take responsibility for his area, he doesn’t seem to understand key elements of his job.

I'm actually doing some decorating (badly) whilst watching the tribunal so the F&B paint chart is propped near my laptop ready for this afternoon's session.

I do wonder if there will be another 'retirement' shortly.

Same here.

I'm wearing my late husband's old gym gear.

And here I am, wondering 'am I good enough to apply for a promotion thats 1 grade higher, though still relatively junior'?

Whats the saying about the confidence of a mediocre white man?

I think there are various factors in the difference in media coverage of this and Sandie Peggie.

With Sex Matters, SP has not only experts in the legal side of the case but also experts in activsim in this specific topic. So they were very proactive in releasing material, and already had a good idea of which angles were likely to get traction and which journalists to approach. The Christian group the nurses have do have activism experience, but not in this topic.

Scottish media already had more interest in the general subject, and more journalists with some knowledge of the issues, because of the gender reform bill. And with Sturgeon and the Information Commissioner there were more organisations involved and more angles to bring people in.

And we haven't really got into the meat of this case yet. There was some good pre-trial stuff that did get press, but up until yesterday the witness evidence in court was a bit thin - apart from the holey boxers there was a lot of hearsay and generalities, and very few questions rather than juicy crossexamination. No overpromoted fools who didn't know their own sex, no massive failures of disclosure, not much to craft a headline from.

There may be some comfort in the thought that however badly you do this particular job, it isn't in the same league as how badly AT appears to do his.

I wonder what case management they did just before lunch. I’m hoping we’ll hear about upcoming witnesses.

I assume once they finish with AT he'll go home and spend the evening a shade of Sulking Room Pink?

😂

Still catching up and off-topic but this is why the grooming gang enquiry needs to be headed by a judge.

I think for a lot of men, including politically minded men, if there are some women saying that "TWAW" and that to say anything else is "hatred", then that is evidence enough for them that it isn't women, per se, who have an issue with males in female changing rooms...just the nuisance ones making the complaint.

Let's not forget the number of women who enable this and even encourage it. If female HR managers and directors were not going along with it, then I don't think as many men would either.

Snap - even down to the F&B paint chart 😃