"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

For anyone who has ever listened to the Strike books on Audible, I can no longer hear the name Pat, without hearing the way Pat, Strike's secretary speaks when narrated by the brilliant Robert Glenister. I'm now imagining that Pat deciding to retire rather than dealing with the nonsense of this policy.

AT - chain, asked for it to be expedited.
NF - you say you know our policy is in need of an update, that's what you responding to?
AT - as you say I was cc'd into the chain and I thought it was clear it needed updated and asked.
NF - but not a full review because of the letter?

AT - correct
NF - in fact it was March 25 when it was reviewed
AT - yes
NF - a year later
AT - that's when it was ratified, the review started before that date, meetings etc. NF - yes, TITWPP as it was remained in force until March 25

26 women, vs 1 man, a TiM at that. Whose concerns carry the most weight, I wonder?

But ✨trans✨, tho.

AT - yes
NF - you chaired the review committee?
AT - no
NF - need to check bundle, supp bundle at pg203. TITWPP prapaired by gillian bailey, is that not your signature
AT - sorry yes it is, not the review committee, it's sign off by Union and management, not detailed review team.

NF - you didn't engage in lawfulness or appropriateness of this policy?
AT- correct
NF - para 77 of your WS. you say that policy was withdrawn after FWS ruling. AT - yes
NF - 24 March 25 ratification date, and withdrawn the next month
AT - yes
NF - Bailey date, was in

And why the hell not? I would ask. He is paid to be on top of the details as well as steering the overall direction of his department. Both of those. You don't, as head of HR, leave the details of policy to someone else because you are in overall charge. People have forgotten this - being the boss means knowing everything that goes on in your department. It means being on top of the current legal situation. Delegating is of course necessary in a big department, but he should know what needs to be changed, even if he isn't doing the actual re-drafting. These people are always happy to take the salary but not the responsibility.

NF - 5 weeks later
AT- yes
NF - so which policy applies?
AT - there's no policy in place at the moment
NF - you spoke to TA, concerns around July 23, she said addressed locally between management and Bailey. How did you understand them to have been addressed?
AT - raised,

AT - and provided advice. Gillian had given advice to management of care group.
NF - do you know what advice?
AT - no
J - we've read it, do you know what she said?
AT - no, I knew nothing about it till the letter from Miss smith, didn't know what had happened or who involved

He is the Trust HR Director. He will be paid 2-3x times what Isla Bumba earns.

NF - you have heard what the N have said, they say they weren't consulted before RH given permission to use CR
AT - no idea, wouldn't know
NF - part of policy is communication to colleagues of a TG person in the workplace. We get now to Regulations. Aware of general obligation to

NF - assess risk to welfare?
AT - not sure
NF - Trusts obligation under H+S regs to assess risk
AT - H&S not my remit, another dept.
NF - understood, if I was to talk about H&S regs you wouldn't know
AT - have glanced at them, couldn't quote them
J - I'd be impressed if you could

NF - 24 March 25 ratification date, and withdrawn the next month
AT - yes

So the Trust does not have a trans policy.

Coincidentally pulled it after the SC ruling in April.

So who is pissing where?

NF - you understand the concept, assess risk before you do things
AT - yes
NF - did it occur to you after the letter from 26 nurses, that it was't just discomfort but a risk to their health, safety and welfare.
AT - not something I considered at the time, no
NF - what the Trust

NF - did in response to the letter was to apply the TITWPP to them.
AF - yes
NF - go to 77 and 78, you say they allege the PCP disregards sex and you go onto say PCP allows access appropriate to gender
AT - yes
NF - that is the response to the complaint. We allow access to SSS

This over-paid individual is infuriating me.

I am finding this hearing very painful to follow. Often I have to walk away. This morning I mowed the lawn to cushion myself from the distress of all of this even HAVING TO GO TO ET.

The fear of them losing because the claim was poorly expressed or argued is real, Grok notwithstanding. I am a worrier and my nerves are shot.

Sorry just sharing my feeling of panic. That may be unfounded.

Speaking metaphorically, I think the men are pissing on the women. 😡

J - I'd be impressed if you could

Understatement of the case.....

Why does he keep repeating when he first became ‘aware of Rose’??

What’s that got to do with anything??

@YouCantProveIt NF is doing a great job in general. But Andrew is hanging himself by his own petard.

And setting himself on fire and throwing himself under a juggernaut at the same time.

He seems to know nothing about anything. What on earth does he do all day?

You have to ask what people like this - whom apparently understand and do so little and just seem to go around in circles making 'work' for themselves and others - possibly contribute to the efficient functioning of the NHS (and the economy/society in general).

NF - did it occur to you after the letter from 26 nurses, that it was't just discomfort but a risk to their health, safety and welfare.
AT - not something I considered at the time, no

Breathtaking. How do you get to be head of HR without having any concern for 80% of your workforce?

NF - according to GI, a male in this case presenting as trans
AT - yes
NF - RH's identity as a woman was acknowledged by Trust when RH said they were.
AT - yes, personally not involved, I was unaware of RH till concerns raised.

NF - go to pg 84, read from bottom of 83, main content of policy. At 84 under process the Trusts recog of TG Identity starts the moment they say so.
AT - yes
NF - use of F CR was given on that basis, on RH's wish to use it
AT - I'd assume, I wasn't involved, RH spoke to manager

If it had been 26 males in managerial/surgical role bet it would have been treated more urgently/importantly.

Exactly. It's about the transitioning at work policy - he was aware of that.
He keeps contradicting himself.

That was delicious. The tone indicated that so far he has been distinctly unimpressed by this witness.

Don’t know, didn’t read it, not my role - WTF does he actually do?

AT - that that is how RH intended to live life. I wasn't involved.
NF - at 91, section you are ref'ing, guide to managers and employees, issues which may be considered includes when using GN or SSS this should start from when employee wants it to start. They are legally allowed

NF - to use any toilet facilities they choose.
AT - yes
NF - even though RH was not bio female.
AT - yes
NF - regardless of sex in other words
AT - correct.
NF - another specific of policy, and F not wanting to be in there should go and change elsewhere, pg 92

Witness sounding a bit terse now

FFS, under the H&SaW act of 1974, every single employee is expected to take reasonable care for 1. Their own H&S and 2. the H&S of anyone else who may be affected by their own actions or omissions, whether that's employee, customer, visitors etc.

That's been drummed into me in yearly training over a very long time. It is NOT acceptable for anyone, let alone the Head of HR, to say "H&S? Nothing to do with me guv".

An H&S issue was identified to him and he has omitted to escalate, or delegate or otherwise ensure that it was addressed. Clear breach of the regs IMHO.