"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

NF I see no note of this. July 23 concerns though AT I only aware from the letter NF So u were aware of earlier AT I think I was on holiday whne it arrived. MS emailed w a copy of the letter attached. Dir of Operations also aware of concerns. I briefed on Apr 5th to execs

AT I wld have asked Tracey if prev concerns NF By Mis Atkinson will have briefed u before? Yes NF SHe told u about July 23. Did she tell u b4 u briefed the execs or not? U say u knew of history. When told? AT I cant remember. Was a convo rather than a mtg

Nauti has designated this as Bicident

This is how it shall henceforth be known.

This is correct.

Actually, editing to add, it's bincident. A bicident is much more snack-related.

AT's style of management is definitely not "Buck Stops Here" is it.

One of the things that annoys me intensely about modern politics and business and society in general is people not standing up and taking responsibility for their decisions, and people at the top not acknowledging that ultimately it falls on them.

NF LL talked about concerns.. AT 1st I knew was when letter arrived. I didnt know about earlier concerns until later. April and May mtgs held and as things between clearer was when they provided feedback to me NF Yr not sure if was a history to this?

Please don't accuse me of biphobia, but isn't it Bincident?

26 women write to the head of HR about a serious complaint. You go to the senior leadership team, and brief them about what is going on.

Do you:
A, Take detailed minutes of the meeting
B, Do background research to make sure you know everything about the issue you are briefing on
C, Keep rigorous personal notes on the issue in case this goes further than the senior leadership team
D, None of the above, repeat that you had no knowledge of the situation before the letter arrived, and that you can't remember, and hope that gets you off the fish hook you appear to be squirming on....

FFS

AT I wasnt aware until later NF Issue is distress re RH presence in CR and RH's behaviour AT I have read the letter AT The allegs re behaviour relate to behav in the CR. Go to the letter in bundle 3

Well deserved lunch break for all

I'm so sorry. I've let you down, I've let the board down, I've let myself down.

How very dare you point out my dyslexia. 😂

Re: EqIA

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust carried out an EqIA that was deemed to be inadequate. It conflated SEX and GENDER, and only looked at the impact on transgender people - in other words, the impact on all groups other than “Gender Reassignment” was found to be none.

Other nonsense includes, under the PC of “AGE” the response “No differential impact known - people may transition at any age”, and under “SEX/GENDER” the response “No differential impact known - a high percentage of CDDFT workforce identifies as female therefore managers need to be supportive of female to male transitions (sic) in historically female dominated professions. Some males that wish to transition to female may be attracted to historically female professions.”

Right, I have to go and run an errand. Please don't fill up this thread in an hour. Thready 4 is cued up and ready to go when needed.

NF [above comment was NF too] This is all about behaviour in the CR AT Yes NF None of these Complaints wld have come about if RH was not permitted to use the CR AT Yes NF Here's a good place to break J [gives admonition re evidence] We'll return at 2pm SESSION ENDS

link to thread

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1983132786069246288.html

So do I post my 32p in copper to you or do we have a shared piggy for losing bets, working our way up to an ET lotto of sorts.

Also is an inadequate EqIA basically the same as having not done one because it's useless or are we going on technicalities that one was technically done even if it was a crap shot.

I am going to call bullshit on AT knowing nothing before he got the letter.

He will have been told. Maybe not detail or formally but a quiet word along the lines of There’s a lot of nurses very upset about a TW in the CR.

He probably rolled his eyes and said keep me in the loop if it escalates.

Nice finish there by NF on one of many highs.

Justabaker · Today 12:10
I do some expert witness work myself - sometimes the parties appoint 'duelling' experts who each write a report, then meet and prepare a joint report. You can 'dissent' from the joint report but that's usually quite short.
The parties can agree on a single expert and both will give instructions as to what they want addressed.

In my work expert evidence is everything. As an expert witness it is normally the case that the experts start (well before Tribunal) as advocates for their client's interests. As Tribunal approaches we cease being advocates and start being experts. We agree as much as we can on a Statement of Agreed Facts and Disputed Issues. We then produce separate reports on the disputed matters, and the Tribunal determine what they believe to be correct, which is normally somewhere in between the two experts positions, but can be accepting one party or the other 100% if they have significant credibility and the other expert does not. Occasionally the Tribunal will use their knowledge and experience to tell both experts they are wrong and determine something else!

The key thing about expert witness work is that you are expected to be, and appear to be, knowledgeable, open, transparent, honest, unbiased and credible. If you do not appear to be those things then, to a fairly large extent, you might as well have not turned up. Tribunal tend not to be idiots and they can normally sniff out idiots or liars or people who are thinking more about their instructing party than their obligation to the truth.

The idea that at the very least you wouldn’t do some homework and get backbriefed by your own staff before speaking the execs is unbelievable.

I missed most of this guys testimony due to usual issues following discussion about the additional bundle. Hoping I get in for the afternoon session as TT, despite being a fabulous resource, doesn’t paint the full picture.

I've missed most of the day so far, but I've obviously tuned at the right time to experience Mr 'Don't Ask Me Guv, What Would I Know I'm Only Director of Workforce and Organisational Planning'😠

It was an informal mtg on Fri pm w exec directors

aka boozy lunch

This appears to be an endemic failure in public service organisations to understand the purpose of this exercise. I’ve heard of many organisations who have carried it out as if the protected characteristic the proposed policy is about is the only thing to be looked at, not its effect on other protected characteristics overall.

There are shades of Andy Letton 'can't see the problem except a load of noisy women' with this guy.

And I think that’s because there is an endemic failure to balance conflicting rights and needs.