"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

Or as the judge memorably put it at the close of proceedings last Friday 'POETS day'.

What is it with Andrews and women?

It absolutely infuriates me to know that whil people like this are having Friday afternoon meetings that they don't minute and can't recall, many many clinical staff on a fraction of their pay will have done a 13 hour shift with no breaks and had to change their clothes in uncomfortable and anxiety provoking circumstances.

The lack of humility, intergrity and conscienciousness in highly paid public servants is genuinely revolting.

I should add: deemed to be inadequate is by us, the auditors. But I suspect anyone with a primary school education and half a brain cell would agree.

Just de lurking in the break to say @myrtlelion so sorry to hear that you've been unwell. Sounds horrid. Wishing you well on your recovery.

What did respondent's barrister say about JKR? I just saw references to it as I was skimming. I can't think what relevance she has to nurses in a changing room!

Let start a piggy (interesting…I would say kitty).

And as far as whether an inadequate EqIA is the same as no EqIA at all, it’s my personal opinion (IANAL, etc) that it’s worse, because it makes people think something has been done, when in fact nothing has been done at all.

I don’t have the numbers to hand (am quickly snarfing my lunch before things kick off again!) but of the EqIAs that NHS trusts actually carried out, I think we found 1 (one) that came close to being adequate. The rest were as you describe.

If you look through TT there was a complicated but that I found hard to follow where "children's author" is mentioned. Maybe someone who was viewing can expand a bit?

They were discussing the context of a change of Particulars of claim that was accepted and so SC was discussing the relevance of the Supreme Court judgment and said it wasn’t relevant to this case ‘whatever a famous children’s author may think’

that’s not verbatim but reasonably close

Exactly!
Just like in risk assessments for male prisoner in women's prison - only the risk to the male from the women prisoners was considered so surprise, surprise, low risk, everything hunkydory.

@DoubleDuvet The lack of humility, intergrity and conscienciousness in highly paid public servants is genuinely revolting.

Agreed.
I have missed this mornings' evidence and just read TT on x a few minutes ago. I am already furious at the contempt this chap has for women's privacy and human rights. What an unpleasant misogynistic man.

This was just tweeted by Christian Concern:

The latest extraordinary reporting from Newcastle: “He told us he was not going down the full transition route (a sex change operation) and when he was asked why, he told us that he wanted to father a child with his wife. “He said he wanted to wait until his wife was pregnant. “He also told us he did not consider himself to be a lesbian. “It was a confusing time for people. “It was not for us to judge, but there were a lot of mixed signals and miscommunication between colleagues.” Mrs Shields said she became aware that Rose Henderson had begun to use the female changing rooms and she “felt extremely uncomfortable” about it. Mrs Shields said in her witness statement: “My assessment is that 80% of the female staff at the time were not happy that Rose was permitted to change in our changing rooms. “The majority of the people that I spoke to were not happy with it.” She said she asked her manager “why we were expected to share our changing room with a male?” Mrs Shields continued: “Her answer was that we have to be shown to be ‘a diverse and accepting Trust’. “I was aware that in the recent past we had a reputation of being a bullying environment for students and that students were refusing to come to Darlington as a result.”

I wasn't following this thread earlier... how can the Supreme Court case not be relevant, unless, perhaps, the nurses were consciously choosing to use mixed sex spaces when spaces for women were provided?

OOoof. The man rummaged around in his 'What I understand about the legal status of gender critical beliefs' bag and grabbed the first 2 items he'd chucked in there months ago - Supreme Court ruling has something to do with women, and JKR supported it.
Not really showing a razor sharp, strategic legal mind at work.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1983129188757389802

And it seems mightily convenient for Mr Cheetham if the SCJ is irrelevant, i must say.

On the subject of Heads of HR tending to be men even when the other HR staff are female:

Until this morning all the witnesses (past and future) and observers have been sitting in the two rows of chairs at the back. In front of these are (3 or 4?) rows of long tables and chairs. Generally counsel, barristers, solicitors and so on sit in the first two rows of these, in my limited experience.

Mr Andrew Important Head of Whatever It Is got up from the back row of long tables and chairs.
Unless he's been here since the Tribunal started and laid claim to the seat, why has he gone for one of the better, more comfortable, more official places to be? Does his importance mean he automatically thinks he's entitled to one?

For the benefit of those not able to watch live, this courtroom is locked between the proceedings we see. So, first thing in the morning, during 10 minute breaks, lunch and so on, when proceedings are due to start the door is unlocked and counsel, witnesses and observers troop in and sit down. At the start of a break they all get up and leave, and the door is locked.

How is it that this current respondent (witness for the NHS Trust) is so woefully unprepared for the claimant’s barrister’s questions?
The only thing I think of is that the NHS Trust here has tried and tried to settle this ahead of the ET, probably right up to the last minute, but this has been declined by the 8 claimants. Maybe this Andrews has only just been briefed and coached by his Trust’s solicitor as they were hoping it would all go away 🫣
It’s so embarrassing, his reputation is shot. So many of these thick but very loud bullying types in higher management in the NHS.

God it was a watch.

This is the most senior person in ‘workforce’ - Director of HR equivalent.

Defensive, out of his depth, unconsidered, long pauses, eyes looking up a lot as if searching the empty parts of his mind for any shred of assistance.

Absolutely extraordinary that he is in a position to address the workforce and welfare of 8000 people. He is handing the case to the claimants.

Wasn’t aware, can’t consider, didn’t know, didn’t think, accepts biological male men shouldn’t be in the changing room.

But it makes my blood boil that men doing their job badly and dismissing women - who lack the imagination to consider their lived experience - keep their jobs while the Darlington Nurses & HCA & Housekeepers lived in fear.

I imagine we’re just warming up. But if Andrew is top dog I can’t imagine those reporting to him will blow our socks off.

@YouCantProveIt Excellent summary thanks

But even if he hadn’t prepared, he should still have been aware of the SC judgement and Forstater.

Peter’s principle?

Just catching up on my lunch break. This HR guy seems similar to the Leonardo HR guy, but worse.

And what the hell was that kindness training website? It was like some awful parody.

I don't understand that either. If, as per the Supreme Court ruling, Henderson had not been in the changing rooms, there would have been no discussion of who was considerate, who wasn't, who might want to father a child, who was wearing boxers and staring at women getting undressed, who should have changed in a toilet or hidden behind a locker (plus diagrams!).The trust's failure to make single-sex spaces actually single-sex, is at the heart of it.

@RoostingHens
Absolutely!!
I’m clutching at straws trying to think why he’s so woefully unprepared. I’m cringing.

Thing is, he’ll just go back to his well remunerated position after this, after costing his trust a fortune in payouts, terrible reputation damage to his NHS Trust and, he won’t face any disciplinary proceedings afterwards including any referrals to any regulatory bodies. He’s not a HCP so his life continues unaffected apart from brief embarrassment.