"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

Everywhere I've ever worked, EDI sat under HR. So claiming not to know what they were doing wouldn't wash.

I wonder if TA has any idea of how she comes across?

I doubt the J is bamboozled by her.

She is very obviously 'managing' the truth, massaging it, and painting it over with Nothing To See Here in big black letters.

Can't do biggly letters sadly, and Boiled is not about.

I had to pop out. Are we expecting any more today or are we done?

There still seems to be a good amount of gas in the tank.

nothing to see here

I think.

Well I linked to a North East sexual assaulter earlier in the ladies who said he was a woman in a high pitched voice.

Here’s another in my dataset from Birmingham. This sexual assaulter also said he was a woman - his difference was that he had a high vis jacket on and took his beanie hat off.

During a police interview, Bullock claimed that the reason he was in the toilets was that he now identified as female. As part of his sentence he is barred from entering or loitering outside female toilets, and wearing any type of high-vis jacket other than for a lawful employment purpose or when required on transport.

How are women supposed to know?!!

Why not ban all men from entering female toilets and female changing rooms except male children (with their female carers) and male cleaners (who prop open the door with big signs disclosing they’re there and announce their presence so women can leave). That’s safeguarding. That’s what used to happen.

I found this from TA absolutely gobsmacking:

TA - No. NhS is a huge org and I need to make sure my teams support concerns. We are not here to manage concerns just support them.

A. What does "support concerns" mean?
B. If it's not your or your team's job to "manage" concerns, let alone, God help us, RESOLVE them, what actual value do you bring to the organisation? What do you make better? Who do you affect in a positive way?

I have been involved in redundancy selections before (as part of a team of consultants) and someone who said something like this would be setting off all sorts of alarm bells for me.

If there's no safeguarding issues for mixed sex changing, no privacy or dignity issues that matter, and being 'uncomfortable' is something people should get over, he will be fine in the men's. Won't he? Why any issues with him being in there?

That would pin down quite nicely what he and the hospital really want out of him being entitled to undress with non consenting, distressed women. And the massive privilege that comes with being born with a penis.

Edited to add: as far as I'm aware at this point he has no legal right of any kind to be in the women's changing rooms. It is not a human right either for a man to be provided with women in a state of undress.

'We are not here to manage concerns just (to) support them'.

I'd like this on a T shirt, please.

Where is Boiled? Has she sent in a note from her Mum? I think we should be told.

Well exactly, I've worked in the NHS for nearly 30 years and I've only everyl known it be an HR function. You don't see much EDI output on many protected characteristics other than GR, I wonder what they all did before the trans bus came along.

I too miss Boiled and have also not had an official absence request!!!

.

We summoned her like BoiledBeetlejuice!

From TT

[Tribunal resumes 15:44 - late to admission]

NF - You had the gist that women didnt what ro share with TG?
TA - Yes. I guess that the TITWPP *(TITWHOOP) was be part of conditions. I was trying to understand the concerns.
NF - You say several times about not knowing the concerns. Here it gives a strong recommendation.

Was miss Bailey doing what you thought she would do?
TA - I had confidence where this concerns was going to be managed.
NF - What would the dealings be under RP?
TA - My teams would support at stages. Mine was a more broader role in HR

*bolding mine

From TT

NF - You heard Cs say that further complaints were made over following months. It's right that raising concerns would be stage one of RP?
TA - It may be round the table discussions, there'd be a paperwork trail.
NF - U learned concerns had not gone away by Feb 2024. U saw an email from Claire Gregory. We will look at that. Starting at para 153 of your statement.
This is a 2nd time this complaint had come to ur attention
TA - 2nd time it had arisen yes

I'd consider putting it on a t-shirt, but I don't know WTF it means. I won't wear anything I don't understand. Can anyone explain it to me? Seriously.

More to the point, did she do either?

I interpret it as "we won't actually do anything but we'll make soothing noises at you until it's all over".

I know it is very juvenile, but every time I hear Smedley, I snigger in my head.

From TT

NF - If we go to 277. See an email from Clare Gregory [CG] from Smedley. And Sandra Watson [SWT]. CG is a matron at DSU.
[TA reads]
NF - Next one is 281. A msg from CG, a msg essentially to herself and attached to an email to miss smedley.
[TA reads]
NF - So this is CG sending a link and emails to Smedley and then 287. A msg from CG to Smedley, miss nailer and miss Harrison, who are they?

Doesn't it also relate to clinical practice and patient care?

TA: "this 'concern' [a man in F CR] for want of a better word", said dismissively

Later NF called it "this complaint" but TA corrected him by calling it "this situation".as part of her ongoing attempt to downplay

Mine was a more broader role in HR

I’ve met some of these people with “more broader” roles. Their roles seem to involve lots of meetings and little action, though when decisions are made and action taken, the decisions are mostly bad and the action often damaging.

From TT

TA - I think Nailer is a sister at DSU
NF - U say in your WS [reads " I came to know concerns"]
[TA reads]
NF - No sorry we dont see that. [Reads] So we see here, sorry for mistake, is JBs further advice and u are in the distribution?
TA - yes
[J clarifies]

NF - I believe u were sent the email at the start of this sequence. Go back to that.
TA - I don't recall that email
NF - Let me go to why I think it was sent to u. Go to page 125.

In which case it was nothing to do with them as they weren't in the loop. And when the decision was the right one and the outcome successful it was all about their dynamic leadership.......

I think we have found yet another passenger for the B Ark. It's filling up rapidly.