"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 think that TA is using "complaint" to mean, specifically, "formal complaint". That's why she downplays anything up to, from her point of view, the formal complaint process kicked in.

From TT

NF - There we have Smedley writing to JB, you and Laidler and we see Smedley says [reads "concerns today - seems day surgery feel uncomfortable and should have been made aware. I think theres some exaggeration Rose is parading about in her underwear"]

It's almost as if they were Bumba-ling along.

So they thought the nurses were lying then?

To be fair, our last EDI person was actually pretty helpful re reasonable adjustments, OH etc to me as a manager with staff with disabilities. I didn't need her on any other issues, so can't speak to that. But she seemed sensible enough.

I suspect she was in the minority though.

To 'support concerns' you have to have an office, and it must have a picture of some flowers, and you have to tilt your head to one side and say 'So, I'm hearing...' a lot.

From TT

NF - This phrase is used again. Go back to 277. Thats the only email i can find in this sequence. It is to her from CG and includes phrases "on one occasion this member was walking around in boxers shorts while F were getting ready"]
It looks to me Smedley is attaching that email when she writes to you and others?
TA - possibly
[J clarifies]
NF - When she says attached, the email says "parading round in underwear".
TA - I dont know what the attachment is. I dont recall seeing that

There's a sense here that none of the buttons or levers that people could see where connected to the underlying operating mechansim.

From TT

NF - We cant ask Miss smedley but u cant remember whether u read that at the time
TA - I defo did not read it at the time
NF - So even if u had been sent it u wouldn't have read it?
TA - I was aware JB was involved in the matter but I wasnt dealing with that matter at the time.

TA - Our role is to give advice and support not to manage
NF - She says "theres some exaggeration"
J - Its addressed to Jillian
NF - And u are included in distribution?
TA - yes
NF - And you had no reaction. Did u respond in any way?

From TT

TA - I may have asked what did she mean by that but I didn't.
NF - What u describe in your statement is that this was a comprehensive reply. Was the content of that reply for u to consider?
TA - No im not an expert in equality law. Wasn't for me to review
NF - [reads "c1s gender colleagues and trans colleagues"] This is a challenge being made to TITWPP?
TA - This is a xhallenge to situ we were facing at that time. JB says [reads too fast] That was her position. I had no reason to question

It is easy to see how all of this turned into a nasty festering mess that has helped no one but has consumed a lot of resource. I know from my own bitter experience [in the public sector] that the fallout causes deep seated problems long term.

From TT

TA - Mu understanding was it was very moving in terms of guidance at the time
NF - See how Miss Bailey ends. She says " ideally an ideal solution is gender neutral facilities. Interim open dialogue, assess privacy, installing partitions"
NF - [reads " seeking legal advice would be prident"] This all went beyond TITWPP which says find alternative facilities. You're nodding. Whose responsibility was to consider those recommendations?
TA - Normally policy holder and conjunction with staff side and stakeholders

TA - No im not an expert in equality law. Wasn't for me to review

You're high up in HR but equality law has passed you by??????????????

I bet we can all guess who the stakeholders that would be considered.

Nothing, but he doesn't appear to have done so. And we actually have little understanding of his motivations for using the actual changing room. Possibly he wanted to follow them to the locker room but realised just how bad that would look, but that is sheer speculation.

AT might have floated to the top in an organic way but TA comes across as being much more adept and talking the talk and playing the game. So far she's taking fewer "direct hits" from the cross-examination than AT.

This (as Fife did), showcases how unfit for purpose the NHS is. All these highly paid individual managers, completely clueless about the law, legislation, safeguarding, basic principles in relation to competing "rights" while being in thrall to the demands of men insistent on watching their female colleagues undress, shower etc.

Very depressing.

From TT

J - Was there a particular person responsible?
TA - It would be the policy holder.
NF - Mr Moore?
TA - Yes if thats Mr Moore.
NF - Policy went back to 2021. [Searches for policy]
NF - So thats the first page of policy current at the time. Chairman at the time was Morgan Smith. Are either the policy holder?
TA - Mr Moore is the equivalent of me so yes
NF - when u saw recommendations u thought thats for Mr Moore?

Is every single (well paid) representative of the Trust going to say, Nothing to do with me, guv?

From TT

TA - Yes. JB was looking at policy and Mr Moore copied in
NF - You shared an office with Mr Moore at the time. Did u discuss?
TA - We will have done yes but not necessarily about policy
NF - Re legal advice "seeking legal advice was prudent" looks to me JB is saying its not clear and to seek legal advice. Whose responsibility was that?
TA - Mr Moore's. It was complex at that time. Better to ask JB or Mr Moore that question.
NF - In Feb 2024 we've seen correspondence around this issue. From perspective of Cs there was no communication. Why?
TA - I had no formal concerns at that time. I just knew it was complex at that time

YES! Unmoored from reality.

(just a housekeeping note to say Thread 4 is ready to go when we get near to capacity in this one.)

Less direct hits I agree, but I think her (lack of) responses are equally damaging for the Trust.

That's probably because she's female and therefore needed some tiny basic level of competence at some stage.

Do they need the formal concern to be carved in stone before they take it seriously?