"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.

My interpretation of what J is asking here is that TA is describing a thicket of evading responsibility that a reasonable complaint would struggle to make headway in.

Tribunal Tweets

TA Was trying to establish the specifics of the concerns. Would support putting that into a formal process for best outcome.

J What didn't you understand

Duh. (TA, not J)

Before everything gets properly underway I just want to say a huge

THANK YOU

to all the transcribers and commenters. I can’t watch this time and it’s been brilliant to follow along.

I thought my gob couldn’t have been more smacked after Forstater, Bailey, Peggie, Kelly et al, but I was wrong 🤯

J You get letter - was it clear or unclear to you
TA Clear there were concerns within the area. In mtg I wanted to understand trigger for concerns.
J Understood concerns
I understand the concerns in the letter, yes. Not clear what to do about it

The judge is making the contradictions clear...

Interesting contrasts in this witness's demeanour.

When answering the J's questions she's all sweet smiles. When talking to NC she's more normal, there are no smiles.

Perhaps typical of her approach to those higher up than she is in the authority ladder.

I may be reading too much into this.

The judge's interventions are fascinating - especially as she responds to him much less guardedly. He's elicited some much balder admissions of gaping holes in the process (and her previous answers)...

IB and AT also said they were members of professional networks. I find it hard to believe that no one in these networks asked questions / commented about Forstater, etc.

Do we have a TT re-poster today (she asks, selfishly…)?

I don't think she's realised what she's just admitted.

This keeps occuring to me too.

It's an unpleasant thought that it may be an intentional technique of self defense and if so, what is it covering up. It's working quite well in court in terms of avoiding accountability.

(commenting on TT)

Long time lurker but I could no longer hold my peace and registered to express my astonishment at TA saying "taking [the] petition around in a clinical setting was a cancer".

Not my decision
J Whose decision
TA here would be ix officer
J ix officer would ix and record. Ultimately whose decision if not yours.
TA If not by matron to assoc dir of Nursing.
J Whose decision is it on policy
TA Trust decision...

Pass the parcel - not TA, so to investigating [ix] officer, to matron, possibly, or Assoc Dir of Nursing, but ultimate The Trust.

This witness, despite what she may think, is very damaging for the trust's case. Moreso than AT

If she says around, understand, concerns again, I may have to disconnect. Endless use of 'around' is always a sign of corporate NHS HR bollocks.

Anyone else still WFTCHTJ??

This witness, despite what she may think, is very damaging for the trust's case. Moreso than AT

AT came across mainly as useless. TA seemed to be actively undermining the nurses making progress in reaching a resolution that was in alignment with the law.

TA Our policy allowed RH to use F cr. Conflict.
...
TA I appreciated what DSU colleagues were asking for but was conflicted about situation. I couldn't win.

That's how genderwoo messes up workplaces - making nonsense into policy.

There’s usually a lot of ‘raising’ and ‘supporting’, thrown in there, too.

Exactly

Feels like the judge has taken over cross-exam...

Very successfully. It's up to the nurses management to address concerns...but they can't go against Trust policy which is to allow transgender access.

Bam.

Re 'education' of complainants:
NF You sent JB in to reeducate.
TA No. Not reeducate.
NF To be clear where I am going.
JB sent in to bring wider awareness. You are saying Cs need to be put right.
TA. No. Didn't know DSU colleagues. No personal interest in this.

I think what they are covering up is basically that they (despite TAs constant use of the word “balance”) that no attempts whatsoever were made to balance the right of the women and Rose. They have been indoctrinated to believe that Rose should have whatever he wants at all times.

I thought I couldn't win was significant. Not we couldn't win, or there was no way to resolve this fairly, or...

🎯

Yes, that was actually what passed for 'policy' - if a man says he is a woman, or is 'transitioning in the workplace', he is allowed use the facilities he chooses to.
So nobody felt they could tell Rose to change elsewhere, that would have been treating him differently from other women employees...
ridiculous when you write it out like that, but that' was considered DEI at the time.

Going back to the old ECHR guidance (sorry I couldn't find a cache copy) it did say that transgender people can be excluded from single sex provisions if it is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.

One of those aims mentioned being privacy and dignity. And also the wellbeing of the staff member with a history of male trauma would be relevant.

So they could even following this now outdated guidance have excluded Rose after receiving complaints from staff members. They would have to have gone through various steps including considering the impact on Rose and whether there were alternatives.

I don't know what this HR legal advice was though. They can't state it at tribunal. It might have stated against doing so at the risk of Rose bringing a discrimination case.