"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.

A rather telling question from J. He wanted to know from TA whether she could explain who, of the following witnesses, were people who did actually have responsibility for various matters.

No, there was a tedious but perfectly equanimious (?) exchange where she admitted she had read the transcript and listened to the recording and could not identify any specific discrepancies but nonetheless couldn't necessarily accept or validate the transcript. 🙄

The upset was later, when she said that after the meeting she was intending to look at the CR and speak to Rose but then there was an allegation about her in the press.

She is finished! Oh thank god.

TT

J Your remit. Any input into policy
TA No.
J In terms of responsibility for implementing - where does it fall. T
A Policy has number of ratification routes. I would implement whatever the policy suggested.
J Every manager with staff under them has responsibility

to implement policy.
TA Yes, but we would help and advise, especially here with complicated situation J Out of the witnesses to follow, who would have most insight into policy. T
A Ms Bailey.
J Did you, or did anyone you know, go for legal advice
TA Yes, around time of concern

TA And took legal advice re policy
J Before mtg?
TA Yes
SC No re examination
J Thank you TA, you may leave.
NF Andrew Moore is next witness
J Back at 1.45 [ends]

That was a real 'here we go round the mulberry bush' evidence giving. Wonder if the others are going to lead us on a similar merry dance? The judge was having to intervene loads to trying and make headway.

That's the morning session finished. Back at 13.45 (sic).

TT's tweets 2nd half of morning

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1983859175626305996.html

I think TA believed her evidence was very clever. She clearly can't have had any idea how she came across.

J Your remit. Any input into policy
TA No.
J In terms of responsibility for implementing - where does it fall.
TA Policy has number of ratification routes. I would implement whatever the policy suggested.
J Every manager with staff under them has responsibility to implement policy.

Nice one, judge!

I criticised her on an earlier thread last week after one of the nurses gave evidence about why she thought the Trust wasn’t taking their concerns seriously. The nurse mentioned that TA had come to the meeting unprepared as she didn’t seem to understand what the issue was and had gone on to say that she personally wouldn’t be bothered because she had had to get changed with men when in the AF.

I realise it gets confusing when we start talking about comments made on earlier threads.

There seems to have not been any investigation into the misconduct in the CR with Rose.

I would have expected him to at least be asked about it.

If an actual woman displayed those behaviours in the CR I would also expect her to be investigated, if she were making others uncomfortable.

Also when they read out bits of the transcript it sounded like this is more or less how she speaks in her day job. If you see your role as to feign support and reassurance in order to manage concerns without ever actually having to do anything, you might start to think that it's just being professional.

TA Policy has number of ratification routes.
The Trust's Policy Rat-ification Route:

TA is definitely a graduate of the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of management

• "The purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people".
• "You do not take notes if the prime minister says something he did not mean to say — particularly if it contradicts something he has said publicly. You try to improve on what has been said, put it in a better order."
• "The job of a well conducted internal enquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence."
• "What I remember is irrelevant, ... If the minutes don't say that he did, then he didn't."
• "just because people ask you questions, what makes you think you have to answer them?"

She at least got legal advice on the situation and knows about Forstater. That's substantially more competent than the NHS Fife.

Most likely whatever she said to staff was based on the legal advice.

I’m ex forces and I can confirm that we were strictly single sex accommodation blocks for junior ranks. Don’t know about officers as I wasn’t allowed into their accommodation either 😁 If you were caught in the opposite sex block you would be in a LOT of trouble. Different out on exercise (I never served in a combat role) but I don’t remember any difficulty with privacy. However, all this was a hundred years ago when female soldiers weren’t sent to the front lines and soldiers weren’t allowed to have beards (except a Pioneer Sergeant?) so who knows what it’s like now? And don’t forget that sexual abuse and harassment is very prevalent in the armed forces.

TA But then there was media and an allegation made against me in the media which I was v unhappy about.

Does anyone know what the allegation was? TA seems very thin-skinned for a senior HR bod.

It’s pretty clear I would say that her job was the hold the line, uphold the policy, shunt the complaint into the long grass or find a way to reject it, & protect (or “support”) management from the complaint and any fall out. I don’t buy this as HR ignorance. HR knows that their real job is to deliver policy and protect management in this sort of case and even if this means looking slippery and evasive. I imagine the nurses had gathered this. So they gave her short shrift and quite sensibly went to the press.

Is there an issue with repeating the allegation, by any chance?

While I don't feel sorry for TA & the likes, they must at this point feel as if their brains have been taken out, played with by the supporters of extreme genderwoo, and then replaced in their skulls at a time when merely repeating TWAW TWAW TWAW is no longer considered 'management' or 'policy' or 'resolution'.
No wonder they break down occasionally. Overload and contradiction must be doing their heads in, literally.

If anyone else can and would like to do TT reports this afternoon, please do. If not, I will continue.

I'm only able to do it because I'm on DH's computer and he's out. If he thinks that I'd like to be on the computer he will try to insist that I use it ("After you, DW —no, after you, DH"), but he's working on it so that seems unfair when I can use a tablet.
He already gave up the computer during Peggie and Kelly, as iPad access didn't work then.

To summarise, I can do this afternoon but not tomorrow or next week.

You probably have to be very old to recognise the "After You" bit.

Could a Tribunal Clerk be sent to investigate whether Andy Thatcher is wearing brown slippers while observing the tribunal remotely, please?

We have no idea what TA's personal views are on the situation. She was planning on asking Rose if they'd mind using a different room - not very TWAW.

I had a momentary panic because my slippers could be described as brown. It didn't last long, though, as my slippers are on my feet which are below the desk, and the webcam isn't.

I find those situations make me panic and assume it's me when rationally I know it can't be - much like going through customs and suddenly wondering if I might have packed a few kilos of heroin by mistake...

Anyone else got the impression that the Trust HR formal complaints procedure was in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard?