"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 4

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2).
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct; BH (day 2), CH, JP, MG (day 3&4), TH, SS, ST, LL (day 4), JS, AT (day 5)
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct, AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6)

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 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 Seamus Sweeney
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
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, claimant
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany
CH – Carly Hoy, claimant
JP – Jane Peveller, claimant
MG – Mary Anne (aka Annice) Grundy, claimant
TH – Tracy Hooper, claimant
SS – Siobhan Sinclair, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust
ST – Sharron Trevarrow, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust, former housekeeper and wellbeing officer
LL – Lisa Lockey, claimant
JP – Professor Jo Phoenix, expert witness
JS – Jane Shields, witness for the claimants
AT - Andrew Thacker, witness for the respondents, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, witness for the respondents, NHS trust HR.

But to be fair to TA, I criticised her on an earlier thread for mentioning her forces experience during this meeting. It’s now evident that she was asked whether she would be willing to change in front of a man.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't see what's wrong with this question?

After following this tribunal, along with Sandi Peggie's, it is absolutely clear to me that we could sack at least 80% of so-called NHS 'management' with no detriment to the delivery of care to patients AT ALL. Many of them are on salaries most nurses could only dream of.

I have long suspected this (as someone who qualified as a nurse many years ago). We had one ward manager for 4 wards, no HR (it was called payroll), and the hospital managed to function. Yes, it sounds like a Four Yorkshiremen sketch, but can anyone really justify the jobs of the two clowns who have taken the witness stand so far?

I am so angry now at this woman. The utter cheek to whine about personal questions after finding out during this meeting about KDs history of CSA.

"I was bringing it into a process"

"it would be for me to feed back into the process
for someone else to take forward as a working stage two process"

"A Formal Complaint had not been raised"

"awareness needed of the claimants and the management team"

"No I can't confirm the validity of the transcript"

"yes I did listen to the recording...but "
"of course the recording...has gone off a little bit...hasn't it"

"I found that meeting intimidating...why would you ask that personal question? I felt that was hostile, not a comfortable meeting at that point, why would I be asked if I would be comfortable changing with a TW" (no fucking awareness my god, she is offended by the very question yet the nurses have to live it)

The question clearly made TA feel icky. Obviously we know that was her cognitive dissonance peeking out; however, she believes her discomfort was due to the question.

Yes, it is making me take more seriously comments about the NHS being ‘top heavy with management’.

Yes, that must be it.

And arguably it was a hypothetical question anyway - "would you be prepared to change in front of a man".

It’s now evident that she was asked whether she would be willing to change in front of a man.
Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't see what's wrong with this question?

She objected because it's a personal question that she didn't want to answer because she isn't willing for either herself or her daughter to change in front of a man.

Didn't another poster with military experience say that single sex spaces are strictly maintained as such in barracks, and mucking in with male comrades would only take place when absolutely necessary, on active duty or training for same.

And it was also pointed out that given the level of sexual abuse of women in the armed forces, it wasn't a great example of what is acceptable.

quoting from TT real quick:

NF Would you agree it contains material not said within mtg all
TA What do you mean
NF Reads c BH abused as child

If I'm interpreting correctly, it wasn't even brought up in the meeting. TA jotted this information down later as 'what she recalled what was said'.

edited to add: BH's abuse, not sure if KD's was mentioned

I assumed TA herself was that person with a military background.

J cuts through the bullshit.

TT

[TA reading doc]
NF You say there is lots of case law, we can't say you get changed over there cos you're different - where do we end with that?
NF Miss Bradbury says you'd think a big org like NHS would have something in place by now.

You say can't
TA Conflicting. This was pre Supreme Court. Trying to work through complexities. In general terms I was aware of Sheffield case, Forstater. I'm not a lawyer. Trying to talk to mtg about how manifest, as can cause harm.
TA Complex area of law. That was the whole

point. And wouldn't be my decision to ask RH to leave cr.
NF Practical terms - easier to provide individual cr for RH rather that signatories.

TA If RH may have said no, didn't want to change somewhere else, that would be difficult ..
J NF Asking practically - numbers game -

(that's what it says, J NF)

I've watched a number of these ETs and can't recall one where J has had to intervene in cross-examination this much to get the witness to actually answer the question asked and not waffle endlessly.

This is getting down to brass tacks: why Rose was more protected than all his female colleagues.

I think the TT reporter means:
Judge: NF is asking practically - numbers game..

TA If RH may have said no, didn't want to change somewhere else, that would be difficult ..

And there it is.

TT
TA In practical terms moving one individual would be easier.
J A no-brainer, in US terms
TA But we have more than one TG colleague
J But in this
TA In practical terms would be simple, but things following on - more complicated than that

NF Reads quickly from ppls' suggestions in mtg. Women can get changed in own cr, a neutral cr. You then say to see f cr so can visualise.
TA Yes
NF You say will try to see RH this week and look at CR to understand
NF You said would look at cr but never did.

TA If RH may have said no, didn't want to change somewhere else, that would be difficult

'Difficult' like you might end up at a tribunal, with TRAs against you instead of women?

Well I hope she doesn't read Mumsnet threads, that's all.

That 'no brainer' intervention from the judge was gold.

More difficult than this tribunal? I think not. You vastly underestimated the nurses my dear.

She said there more than one tg employee.

Were there 26 tg employees, cos I seriously doubt that?
So, the J’s question is still right. He described it as a ‘no brainer’ to not move this one person.

the pp wasn’t me, but I remember the comment because it accords with my experience in the armed forces.
single sex spaces were rigorously enforced, even in the face of “…but we don’t mind..” (when I was young and naive, I was one of them!)

misogyny rife tho obv.

One thing about TA's evidence that impressed me was that many times she'd be caught out and would, without missing a beat, substitute an alternative meaning or interpretation into the discussion to try to make it seem she'd not been caught out at all.

Pretty smooth but the umpteenth time it happens it tends to create an impression.