"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

if there’s a dispute between 2 groups of workers does it usually just hang around like a bad smell with no one actually taking the lead on resolving it?

I don’t know, but possibly if someone does take the lead to resolve the situation it’s less likely to get to a tribunal.

Honestly, if I took a shot for everytime she says concerns, I’d be passed out

This is particularly bad

I know people criticise lawyers for charging a lot of money and how legal costs become astronomical but honestly, after seeing these legal cases and how lay people have absolutely no idea what the law even is (even if it forms part of the job to know) and have no idea how to interpret the law, I can see why the lawyers are expensive!

This is great evidence - goes to show no chance of anything getting resolved until the nurses went outside the Trust.

and even then it took another year to cancel all trans policies and open themselves up to claims from people with the protected characteristic of gender transition

it’s actually hard to be this wrong at their job

I think this "support not manage" view is common in HR across the NHS.

What I think they mean is that it isn't their role to sort out disputes between staff and management, rather it is to support management to sort out the disputes themselves.

That's all very well in 99% of problems between staff and management, but there obviously must be some issues which are so strategic and wide ranging in their nature that they require a hands on approach from HR - they aren't just a local difficulty.

I retired from the NHS 13 years ago and I'm absolutely amazed at the way in which the NHS witnesses here seem only to be able to answer questions in their own personal capacity (eg "I wasn't involved in that") and and not as representatives of, and on behalf of, their employer. It doesn't matter that you weren't involved personally, it's still your repsonsibility as a trust witness to explain why and how the trust did what it did.

I remember one of the best board directors I ever worked for saying that when he made a decision he always had in the back of his mind "How would I justify doing this if I got hauled up in front of and questioned by a Parliamentary committee?"

They don't seem to understand that this isn't a dispute that needs to be 'managed', it's a situation where they are expected by other staff to be subject experts on the law.

I remember one of the best board directors I ever worked for saying that when he made a decision he always had in the back of his mind "How would I justify doing this if I got hauled up in front of and questioned by a Parliamentary committee?"

I think many industries/professions have an equivalent oversight body who no-one wants to be in front of, justifying their decisions. It's astonishing to me that so few people actually abide by that advice. But perhaps I've been around the block a few too many times.

Thread 4 is over here once this one is full: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5435420-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-4

I think a big part of the issue is that HR often aren’t legal experts and would have absolutely no legal training to be able to read a statute, let along understand it and then be able to put it into practice..

that is why their manuals and best practices are often copied from somewhere else and it becomes a vicious cycle of them all copying from each other but no one actually knows where the initial advice came from but ‘hey, we are all doing the same thing so it must be right’

HR was originally hiring and firing but it is now a mammoth machine that covers so much. I am not excusing their behaviour but I can understand no one wanted to look incompetent as they don’t understand anything legal and no doubt aren’t keeping up to date with all the relevant legislation so they pass the buck to someone else in the hope that that person can deal with it. Cases like this are the result. (No shade to the Hr people who are awesome at that sort of thing but you are few and far between!)

But surely HR professionals should have some understanding of employment law? I did a job years back which required a good understanding of a relevant area of the law and that was a big part of the professional qualification, I would not have been employed in that capacity without it.

They are determined not to upset the entitled man
end

It relies on them doing regular professional development as the law and guidance is constantly changing. many small organisations can’t afford to pay. I have no idea if the NHs pays for courses for all their HR teams but just relying on staff to surf the internet for info and teaching themselves is a hiding to nothing! (As we can see!)

Catching back up after an NHS appointment that would have been just a phone call if the information I sent in had reached the person I was seeing. Sighs.

When I was a manager I made sure I had a working knowledge of employment law. It wasnt part of my job, we had HR for that, but I wanted to be sure I didnt do anything completely stupid before getting their advice. I'm getting the impression I would know more than the NHS HR staff.

HR often aren’t legal experts and would have absolutely no legal training to be able to read a statute, let along understand it and then be able to put it into practice.

I partly agree, but I also have an issue with this. The CPID lists compliance with employment law as one of the core functions of HR, and the vast majority of HR professionals these days have at least an undergraduate degree and many more have CPID qualifications.

UK law isn't that impenetrable when you read the actual Acts, Directives and Regulations. Anyone with an undergraduate degree level of education should be able to follow them and then ask the right questions of legal experts on bits they don't understand.

My impression of this case is that the Byzantine NHS organisation has facilitated the situation where actual personal leadership, accountability and Getting Shit Done is actively discouraged, in favour of tick-boxes and meeting KPIs.

I used to be sick when given the milk. Still dislike it…just a few drops in tea.

@BananaPeels It should be part of the role for any HR department to keep themselves up to date. That isnt always training courses, you'd expect professional associations to be sending out updates.

I suspect promotion in the NHS involves avoiding blame for mistakes rather than avoiding mistakes.

The passing around of bad policy by young unqualifieds rings horribly true following Bumba

Also the poison visible in image mattering but not getting to grips with the situation. Why do over 40 unhappy women have to get their kit off with a man? Because they have to look 'inclusive' (choke) and progressive and other bluesky buzzword bingo squares.

Image and marketing over substance and no one under all the corporate wank knowing much about anything. or doing much of anything.

My impression of this case is that the Byzantine NHS organisation has facilitated the situation where actual personal leadership, accountability and Getting Shit Done is actively discouraged, in favour of tick-boxes and meeting KPIs.

Interesting to compare with the Post Office scandal.

Thank you everyone for the copy pasting here - I'm trying to keep up while feeding my new baby and parenting my 3yo.

Really pedantic, but I think NF is muddying the water by referring to safeguarding/ safeguarding concerns when he probably means risk.

Safeguarding generally refers to protecting specific vulnerable groups - eg children, adults with disabilities - from abuse.

Of course, you don't have to be a vulnerable individual to be abused / be a victim of crime.

So the current witness is correct in saying that she wouldn't have safeguarding concerns regarding a man using the changing room. But that's totally separate from saying that there is no risk (of crime / abuse / loss of privacy and dignity) associated with the man in the CR.

You need to be up to date on employment legislation if your job is to hire and fire people.

It should be but evidence from all these tribunals suggests that isn’t happening in practise.

Who is checking? Who is testing them that their understanding is correct? In this situation where there were 2 competing parties with protected characteristics - what training would they have had to determine how to deal with it?

Not just legislation (much of which is old)
but case law
like the Wetherspoons autistic employee one today
that has cost them a fortune.

Anything that goes to EAT is precedent (Forstater)
if they are not watching the rulings
they will lose when their time comes

I have no idea what it means either but it just sounds a bit corportate speak/avoiding the issue kind of stuff and I fancy swanning around my house wearing it just so the pesky people who also live here know that I am not responsible for anything at all.

New thread that way-->

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5435420-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-4