"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.

From TT

NF - does this policy comply with legislation
JB Pat has not identified whether it is impacted.
NF I am trying to understand process. Yu first became involved in these matters July 2023.
JB Sept
NF can I ask you about July Doc 2 p269

NF - bottom, email Miss Smedley to Miss Watson, you are named in it. Have you seen it before
JB yes
NF part of correspondence relates to a similar raised to R but in theatres, and was Miss Smedley says bringing you to discuss with wider team

NF do you remember speaking to theatres in July?
JB no
NF not asked
JB no
NF in Sept you did get involved
JB yes

From TT

NF we see you coming in page 264. you are nodding
JB yes
NF - just to lead into that, bottom of 268 August Miss Watson to Miss Lesley 'approached by different team...concerns' goes to Miss Atkinson top of 267 Miss S said 'has this been sorted' Sept.

If I was doing her job I would have been so aware of the potential impact of things and covering my own arse. I would have had everything brought to the attention of all the stakeholders and any decisions made in writing. So legal advice, h&s advice, upper management decision makers decisions etc... How can you be this oblivious to the potential impact of your policies? What's she earning?

I only just remembered that myself and my good intentions have an appointment that take me away from my laptop halfway through today. I can assist in posting after the weekend but I'll make sure to actually communicate about that in the thread😄

ETA like Nanny Ogg I didn't know how to stop spelling remememembering

She has a nice, straight parting though, and has done her bow up, in contrast to A Moore yesterday.

Credit where credit's due.

It's a bit much to expect them to do impact assessments and have policies that are legally and H&S compliant as well.

From TT

Then 266 second email 'helpful to have HR input, esclated by theatre team. Suggest we speak to JB
See your reply 26 Sept, you then meet with theatres team, see the email you write after having done that
JB yes after having done that yes

NF you describe the meeting with TW and LW. Miss Robinson also at meeting?
JB yes
NF you describe the meeting p27 - 35, you took notes
JB it wasn't a not of the meeting, it was notes I made as the meeting was happening.

NF - go to those, bundle 3 vol 1 page 755.

J - bear with me for a moment

Yes, all these NHS people not only keeping a close eye on what their witnesses are saying proceedings but also not back at work keeping up with their other responsibilities.

Surely one of them would do, and then report back in a meeting.

I get the impression that the only thing that mattered was facilitating/fawning over trans employees, and doing everything to smooth their path to getting everything they asked for, and ignoring or suppressing anything that would stand in the way of the Trust being good trans allies.

I think that was the lens through which all situations and concerns and conflicts were viewed. Will this look good to the trans lobby?

Tbf, I didn't make an announcement either, I just started doing it.😀 I have to slope off soon, but should get to end of the first half of the morning tweets.

I agree JB appears to be a true believer. I am relieved she seems not to be a liar dissembler.

from TT
NF - [advised J how to do correct keyboard shortcuts.[😁

I will say in her defence that making a stand in such a captured organisation as the NHS would have been an act of self-harm. Cowardly not to, and the honorable way out would have been to leave, but I try to remind myself how all the normal people were cowed by this stuff and the brave made the stands.

But if she is a true believer I will withdraw any sympathy.

Shame we will not hear from Pat.

From TT

NF - [advised J how to do correct keyboard shortcuts.[
NF - p755

NF - important that we read your writing you are making these notes [reads from JB notes RH male trying for baby with partner...no alt facilities...cubicles...complaints, boxer shorts, stubble...cultural despite your discomfort...completely understand...we have a

JB diverse and facilities need to be accommodating
NF what you describe in your statement is that para 31 is that, you describe use by RH of F CR and response to

Cs...you ask q about CR and make practical suggestions. Just going throught that RH could use cubicles in CRs
JB yes

NF any staff member had access to cubicles
JB yes
NF staggering shifts, so staff could be supported if didn't want to be there with RH, with a view to minimise or avoid altogether?
JB - yes

Yes, because obviously al the women can move their shifts around RH’s loitering in the F CR. Madness!

Perhaps I'm being a bit too prudish but I feel quite concerned about the post regarding AM's personal habits in the courtroom earlier. I'm not going to quote it, especially as it's been quoted several times with more personal criticism. It feels like it oversteps a bit and might discredit the legitimacy of remote viewing in people's minds.
I'm all for scrutiny and criticism of the witnesses where it relates to the case, but this just seems a bit irrelevant/intrusive and I wonder if @unlikelysuspect would consider deleting it.
Apologies if I am just being overly sensitive here. I'll fully respect if others don't agree with me.

I agree, and I don't know if I'd have been brave enough to stand up to the tide of genderwoo, if my job depended on it - I'd like to think I'd be on the Side of the Angels but ... so I don't condemn the likes of JB, I mightn't have been any braver in her position -
'Forgive us, O Lord, we acknowledge ourselves as type of the common man...'

From TT

NF so you had 3 suggestions
Cubicles in CR
JB yes
NF dividers?
JB yes because open plan
And all of those rejected?
JB yes they were saying impractical. We were exploring options, trying to put ideas in their heads.

NF and they said not possible
JB for the umm for RH to use cublicles, didn't want to have that conv. Staggering shifts they said would be diff because of way the service runs, and that dividers not available to be used and that you know they said not practical.

There was a big, fat easy solution!

No thought given to possibility that women might arrange their shift patterns around caring responsibilities making the solution a further detriment.

If they are from different trusts around the country (i dont know if they are) then i think it will bebefit us all if they witness this kind of thing themselves. It's years since FWS1 showed that self id was illegal, and months since FWS2 showed that sex means bio sex. It's years since forstater. But still all these people stick with policies that don't provide for our rights and are illegal. Something's not getting through, so a few hours watching their own counterparts in another trust trying to defend these practices is probably worth it.

It also sounds like a logistical nightmare to ensure that Rose is not on duty with any of the many women who didn't want a man in their CR.

JB There wasn't an easy solution to these problems

From TT

LW and ? said that RH had worked for trust for a long time wasn't right for RH to change You describe as difficult meeting JB two competed issues RH being discrim against and staff that didn't want to share with RH difficult because not an easy solution to the problem NF 'I