"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

Interest from the BBC is not going to add to AT's experience this afternoon!

Mens or womens???

Come come now, we can't expect the head of HR to trouble his mind about the possible religious or cultural impact of their decisions. I mean, no one even complained on those grounds so it would be very Not Kind indeed to suggest he should have any degree of foresight or interest about the massive and likely diverse workforce he has responsibilities for. Or take any precautions at all to ensure his workplace are acting within the law or treating employees fairly. That's the wrong type of inclusive HR. And he's had Kindness training to teach him about how to treat other people, so he should know.

I'm guessing the kindness training didn't make it explicit that women count as people too, so we should probably let him off the hook there as well.

J - have to get back to them. You may need to, I can't recall the case on this? SC - witnesses having been sworn, I'm J - my recollection is the request came in after the case. They are available here at the back of the room, that is why we order a 5th bundle

SC - wouldn't be easy to send AT statement J - I have a complete bundle PDF SC - and not all witnesses seen yet J - no that's why I say SC - isn't there a presidential ummm J - it's a public hearing but a distraction, not a criticism. If journo listening it won't be right away

I agree TwoLoons and it not just a case of looking as if something has been done but in many cases appears to be justifying a policy that actively discriminates against women.

J - they can come to the back of the room.
SC - just been told the name of the case, Guardian news v Rozanov, it's on http://gov.uk 2022 EAT12 Judge Tayler.
J- will look at in break and see where takes us.
SC - it was shortly after the judgement. A different point

J - purist approach is they are here, come and look but lifes not like that anymore. I've raised it, if you have more let me know later.
NF - I'll have to check too.
SC - those 2 page no you mentioned, para 20 and 21 pg 127, should be 337.
J - was unsure
SC - should be 348

Thank you AuthorisedCat for transcribing TT.
TT is also on Nitter, for non Xers:
Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) | nitter.poast.org

for second ref.
J - apols AT
NF - looking at the letter, there were 2 issues raised, use of CR by RH and behaviour? that RH presence was the common factor.
AT - y
NF - to deal with that there were 3 qu for Trust. 1. was it factually correct RH male was using CR 2. Had Trust

He is cagey as fuck.

More key than any of the claimants' witnesses?

I have only just noticed that there are three large tables per row, with a gap in between the two occupied by the respondent's team and the one where the claimants' team is sitting. He was on R's side, which is fair enough.

(I'm not reading anything into the 2:1 split. That's the way the courtroom is designed. It does mean there are more seats not occupied by legal people on R's side than C's.)

NF allowed it and 3 should Trust continue to?
AT - yes
NF - was a male using the CR, you knew this stage it was correct
AT - according to letter
NF - factually correct RH is male
AT - according to letter
NF - had had briefing, did it get you that far
AT - told RH was using CR

If he thinks he’s fooling anyone with the shrug and mumbled ‘yes’…

NF - and RH was male
AT - can't say, but that RH was using
NF - how long after briefing execs did you know RH was male and using CR
AT - unsure, role of the IX to look at facts. To determine whether or not concerns in letter could be substantiated.

NF - Is RH male and using the F CR
AT - yes
NF - didn't need an IX
AT - no
NF - 2nd qu, had the trust allowed it. When briefed, was it clear Turst had permitted?
AT - yes, it was in letter yes
NF - clear it was permitted under Trans in the workplace policy
AT - y

Claret is now Burgundy

Ron Burgundy?

NF - was the policy correctly applied?
AT - as far as I'm aware Yes
NF - so the QU really is the 3rd. Should the Trust continue to allow this state of affairs, you nod
AT - yes
NF - only way would be to consider own policy, the Trust to, YOur dept?
AT - we'd play a role yes

SC - speak up please
J - yes please
NF - why didn't Trust do that?
AT - My team initiated a process that would allow us to better understand issues and determine whether the details were factual. Trust resolution process used when concerns raised.

I don't think he has a jazz flute up his sleeve.

At least there are plenty of nurses if his blood pressure can't stand it. If this is how the NHS treat their female staff then how they 'manage the patient experience' suddenly makes a lot of sense.

What a fucking word salad we were in the process of initiating a procedure to look into what the issues might be ……

NF - haven't we established there was no need for an ix, it is uncontroversial, there was no need a male in CR, needed to determine if policy was right.
AT - needed to look at concerns raised
NF - in circles
J - also raises behaviour
NF - conduct and permitted use, if not permitted conduct wouldn't be an issue, we've established

AT - yes
NF - look at letter (reads v fast the letter outlining concerns.) Taking all this at face value, conduct would make women more uncomfortable, a man asking why a woman isn't changing in an enclosed space
AT - yes
NF - reads fast again - if a m in a f CR is taking a keen

After the SC judgment, some people (eg the GLP) wrote lots of flannel about how the SC ruling was PURELY about the make-up of boards of directors etc, and could definitely not be applied to such base matters as changing rooms and toilets and prisons and the like. Some people fell for, or pretended to fall for, this bollocks.

Thanks @AuthorisedCat . Tbh is helpful that as OP your posts are highlighted.

NF - interest, being stared at, whatever form. it's the sort of conduct that would exacerbate discomfort, yes?
AT - yes
NF - right to think needs investigation?
AT - yes
NF - 26 F employees raising issues of conduct as a result of RH in the F CR
AT - yes
NF - why not

NF - have RH use alternative facilities
AT - we did talk about alternatives for anyone uncomfortable
NF - that's a diff question. The conduct can be ix separately. why no interim measure of asking RH to change elsewhere while conduct ix?
AT - I think it's a fair qu