"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.

They seem to have enough hubris to not see themselves as incompetent. Too much self esteem and not enough lateral thinking.

The sole reason for HR existing in the first place was to keep their employer out of tribunals. Yet again this ideology has turned the existence of the thing completely against its sole reason for existing.

That was an idiotic decision that was never appealed. It’s not binding.

My bit did¹. But the fact they announced it - and Investors in People - makes me suspect it may have been optional.

They will also have tame lawyers² on speed dial if they need help.

¹Didn't stop our HR being shit, though.
² No better than HR, in my experience.

I'm trailing behind on thread 3, but I have a question.

IIRC, in the Miss Peggie Vs Fife tribunal, witnesses were told that they shouldn't be following proceedings and that they shouldn't be talking to other witnesses. But in the case, the Judge said to a witness, effectively "Have you been listening well enough? If so, I won't have to repeat myself?" and someone on thread 3 mentioned that all the witnesses (past and future) were sitting in rows.

If I've understood correctly, why is is there a difference in the way it is being dealt with?

I've been wondering this too.

Differences in process between Scotland and England and Wales maybe?

Your trust sounds the same as mine. I too have used anonymous surveys to make a point. We also received the apology to our trans staff after the Supreme Court ruling. Depressing isn’t it.

In the Sandy Peggie case, I found the Herald's daily reporting and summaries very useful. Is there anything similar for the Darlington Nurses?

they can follow proceedings in court if they stay in court — if their questioning is complete — but aren’t allowed to follow in news or online I think or discuss. If they have not finished with them they are not allowed to follow so it might be a note he’s giving them at the end of à split day and that would be different from the notes at end of questioning.

But the chain of posts was about CPD and the duty to be aware of the law.

This is a bit outing, but oh well.

After working clinically for years, I moved to an HR related role - but for the junior medical workforce, rather than other NHS staff. The role included pay, working conditions and the implementation of a new contract. It later included implementing new EU H & S legislation for the medical workforce.

I was expected to keep meticulous records of every conversation, phone call and meeting (informal or formal). If someone had an issue, it needed to be looked into and resolved. If it couldn't be resolved, then there were processes to follow to find a resolution. It could get very fraught at times (particularly where pay banding was concerned), but everything we did had to be transparent and justifiable.

I'm astonished at the incompetence and sloping shoulders of the last 2 witnesses. I had to be across every detail of staff contracts and current/incoming legislation. It was literally my job to make sure everything was done correctly and fairly. If we were unsure of how to implement aspects of legislation, we'd get advice from the trust's external lawyers. I was expected to be an expert in my area, the person that any junior doctor (or consultant) could come to.

That's surely how general HR should work in the NHS too. It clearly doesn't.

WFTCHTJ may have it and it's a difference in procedure between Scotland and England & Wales.

It's also occurred to me that there are 8 Claimants in this case and they would all be entitled to sit in the tribunal room from the start. I haven't worked out (and don't know if it's possible to tell now) if any of the non-claimant witnesses have been sitting at the back during the evidence before being called.

Can you link to this guidance?

Could some kindly remind me of todays start time please?

Usual start at 10am.

My understanding (relating to my own work) is that ETs are very good guidance, because they show what Tribunal can and do determine in a given set of circumstances. One cannot be certain that another Tribunal won't take a very different view despite very similar circumstances, and a lower Tribunal cannot be cited as a precedent... but "this approach was taken in another lower Tribunal case" is an argument that is better than nothing, not least if there is no reason to think the lower Tribunal has erred.

Ref my previous post... sometimes lower Tribunal decisions are mentioned as indicative of how another lower Tribunal should determine... but if the decision is clearly illogical and a one-off and (for example) the claimants have few funds and no appetite to appeal against a powerful respondent, then it is possible for everyone (or most) to agree that a poor decision is of absolutely no helpfulness.

The claimant was the man who wanted to be naked in the female changing room. The respondent was the NHS Trust and it was only that one count of “harassment” of him that they lost on. They didn’t appeal.

Key difference is that evidence in chief is given by written statements in England and Wales. And the majority of examination 'questions and answers' is cross examination by the other side. In Scotland evidence in chief is elicited by q&a from own barrister and then there is cross examination.

Witnesses in Scotland can attend after they have given evidence and should not read accounts of what was said before they give evidence. The written statement in England essentially nails down the witness before the tribunal starts.

It's one of the reasons that TT has to seek a ruling from the Judge before reporting on Scottish cases.
It's also why the first few days felt difficult for the Cs. The R's barrister was probing the weak areas of the C's witness statements and case but we haven't seen the witness statements so we haven't seen the strong points.

A complaints process should include a procedure of reviewing and learning from all informal complaints. Seems like for Darlington this was ignore because they were incompetent.

This would apply to people raising issues to their managers too, not just directly with HR.

A whole bunch of people with avoidance issues when it suited them. These people are paid to do the difficult stuff.

Sorry the EHRC has removed the PDF of the website as the guidance is being changed.

It's worth noting on the HR CIPD front, the CIPD were a fairly captured organisation for a while, and so even if HR professionals sought advice or guidance from that direction, it's likely they would have been told something along the lines of:

Best practice would be for employers to have unisex bathrooms or to let transgender employees know they can use their preferred facilities. They should not be encouraged to use a separate bathroom (e.g. disabled facilities).

Some solicitors in the UK are still spouting that line based on what is now very outdated CIPD guidance.

www.goughs.co.uk/news/the-laws-around-transgender-rights-in-the-workplace/

Good morning everyone, your daily reminder.

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.

So how were you able to dig it up and find the quote?