"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

What do all these people do? They are practicing buck passing as an Olympic sport.

From TT

NF - It wasnt in your remit to communicate with who raised the issue?
TA - I presumed management team had convinced with their staff

[Moved to another doc. Reads too quickly]

NF - [reads "we addressed concerns with Rose not those raising concerns"]. Everything about the tone of that email says it was inapprotobraise concerns?
TA - No. I thought it was escalating. It wasn't resolved at local level. I still hadn't had formal concerns but it was obvious it was escalating. NF - Did you seek legal advice at this point? TA - Yes NF - Right. Dont go further than that. So this is 28th March and u arranged a meeting by Andrew Moore after easter and your leave? TA - Yes. There was correspondence to try and get meeting

My overall impression is that TA simply doesn't see any of the specific items of responsibility as being something she needs to be engaged with and that she somehow sits above it all while people below her get involved. While she keeps herself in the dark about what's going on because she's more strategic or something. That's why she's been remarkably unflappable this afternoon. She genuinely sees all of this as being nothing to do with her.

It is very depressing just how much asymmetrical concern the HR dept for this NHS Trust had for the man and yet so little for the women. Each HR witness adds to the perception that none of them even blinked about the needs of the women.

Could it mean she feels her role is to support (trans identified males in accessing the spaces 'they align with); not to manage the conflict of rights inherent in the situation and in a way which respects both parties.

She thinks she's smashing it. 😂

Yes, TA's evidence is more useful in terms of showing overall dysfunction, in the sense that those running the show were studious in being avoidant wherever possible.

From TT

NF - So this is u to miss Robinson, other theatre staff and Mr Moore. [Reads] Where u say you did meet - was that in ref to meeting in Sept 2023?
TA - Yes

NF - None of those people were DSU, they were all theatre staff?
TA - Yes
NF - even though miss Robinson said issue raised by members of DSU?
TA - Yes.
NF - What transpired was someone from DSU was brought in at last moment?
TA - yes

Surely the more complex an issue is, the more you need to discuss it, not less.

Question for the legal bods - assuming that all Trust witnesses will continue the line of this was all someone else's responsibility, will the Judge/Panel draw their own conclusions that the Trust didn't put forward a witness who was responsible?

deleted because double post

She said she supports but doesn't manage concerns. I think that might mean other people make the decisions (managing) and she "supports" their decisions by noting/rubber stamping them but takes no responsibility for the decisions or any consequences flowing therefrom.

I think that's about it.

From TT

NF - You saw the March 2024 letter. Go to the letter.
[Finding]
NF - U saw this when it came through. Did u read and consider?
TA - Yes
NF - U saw it was a complaint about bio male in CR and inappropriate conduct?
TA - Yes

NF - And conduct was liable to put F users in state of anxiety
TA - yes concerns clearly in this letter
NF - And concerns about Rose being sexually active?
TA - Yes

Do none of them have a job description which identifies accountabilities and responsibilities?

Ive worked in public and private organisations and my accountabilities were always clear.

In high hazard industries its spelled out in agonising detail who is responsible and or accountable. The most senior managers, CEO etc are personally responsible and cannot delegate that responsibility. Hence the need for audits and inspections to satisfy themselves that policies and procedures are being followed. Im astonished at the lack of checks and balances in the NHS and frankly poor leadership behaviours.

WTF

From TT

NF - Now see "duties to TG staff". It concluded that the writers expected the trust to treat Rose with respect and dignity but also those who find the situation intolerable?
TA - Yes
NF - And proposal to require Rose to change elsewhere?
TA - yes more wider concerns later but yes

NF - Go to 325. 4th April when u saw the letter. U write to Morgan Smith. U say there "are some very concerning behaviours going on here". U saw the complaint as concerning behaviour?

I realise I’m running two hours late here, but I don’t understand this line of questioning at all. As I understand it, the Trust had a blanket policy - ID as TW and you’re in the F CR, whether you’re tall/short, look like a man or not, sexually active, heterosexual etc..? None of it makes a difference to the application of the policy. There was no “context”.

CONCERNS don't you know

Concerned, and impact, and situation, and upset.

Is anyone else reading TT and getting a bit cross-eyed at the number of times the word "concerns" is used?

It seems NF is trying to pin down actually what those concerns were, but TA appears to be exceptionally slippery and going round in circles with corporate bullshit language

It’s just management bullshit.

She was concerned about how the legal letter might make "the staff" feel, but not concerned about what the nurses were having to deal with in their CR.

She tries to obfuscate this, unsuccessfully I think.

So many concerns. Just not about women putting up with creepy men while they undress.

From TT

TA - No I saw miss Robinson email as concerning and I was concerned by what I was reading and the escalation and confusion at that point
NF - Whose behaviour was concerning?
TA- one was around a legal letter penned and how that may feel for staff.

NF - I said you described the letter as concerning and you said no and u are now saying yes?
TA - No it was about how the whole matter was escalating.
NF - Its not what youre saying
TA - If behaviour was the wrong word at that point... well. I was concerned about impact on colleagues. Perhaps wording wasn't right
NF - the letter describes behaviour by Rose and F employees feeling upset and situ intolerable. Did that concern u that may raise SG concerns?

There are many activists who if required to put down their jargon and corporate bullshitting and communicate in plain English would not be left with sufficient words to order a coffee.