"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 5

[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&7)
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct, TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8)

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, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, NHS trust HR.
AM – Andrew Moore, NHS Head of Workforce Experience
JB – Jillian Bailey, NHS Workforce Experience Manager

An old colleague of mine used to call that ‘World Famous in the Office’.

We have a lot of staff who have 30 years, or more, under their belts; and they kinda behave like they own the place a wee bit.
And the rest of us are useless newbies. I’ve been there 15 years, so, i’m hardly a newbie, but they can be a bit disrespectful to the rest of the staff.

Perhaps it’s a bit like that in the NHS, too.

I particularly liked the need for training - only when pushed, they couldn't name the training they needed because they didn't need any.

I have sat through a particularly painful teams meeting where a manager was claiming her nurses needed 'training' and 'a policy' to know how to switch off an item of equipment.

Literally just needed to unplug it at the wall.

Somebody with more tact than me managed to persuade them that perhaps, training wasn't needed for this.

In my experience, the 'we need training' trope speaks to a generally dysfunctional unit where nobody feels management has their back.

I know TT has to abridge, so sometimes an important linking step in the logic is lost. But I can't think of any sensible link between TW's statement that she was under the impression that 'transition' meant medical transition, and her next statement that she didn't know whether RH was taking hormones.

I can believe a theatre nurse doesn't know the difference between medical and surgical, and medical transition is hormones. So the 2 statements simply aren't compatible.

That kind of unjoined-up thinking characterised her evidence as a whole.

Yes, but, @NoBinturongsHereMateit was ever so sensitive, and a lot of people just don’t understand transgender.

So, there’s that. 🙄

She doesn’t know, and is too afraid to ask.

From memory there was a comment earlier on the RH didn't think he was a lesbian. I think it was during a discussion over getting the wife pregnant.

Also TW in her testimony when asked about the posters said it was the night staff or similar. She obviously knew who it was.

J asked a lot of questions about shift patterns and when RH would be using the CR. I got the impression that the theatre staff were all changing together and leaving at the same times.

This makes it odd he was there by himself to show off his boxers and harrass nurses from other areas.

When they were discussing scheduling on Friday SC exclaimed with some astonishment that NF had estimated he'd take 4 hours to cross examine one of the witnesses. I can't recall which one and TT isn't clear. Did anyone watching catch it? I'm interested to know if it is Sue Williams. If indeed she was responsible for disclosure that might explain why NF wants so long.

@CriticalCondition I think so. I wasn't listening closely but I think SW needs to finish by a certain time and they were discussing possibly of remote evidence?

I haven't seen the list of issues or claims brought yo tribunal, but each witness seems to have been asked similar qus in XX and one of them is about their answers to qus from Sue Williams.
Eg
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1982757749693034967?t=2SPEv3qKhjxhMoKLKXiOFA&s=19

NF - next, docs you put into RP (resolution procedure), [witness finds doc]
NF - your statement, dated 16/10 2024, prepped for RP?
TH - yes
NF - same bundle, are those the answers you gave to qs put to you by SW? (SW - Sue Williams)
TH - yes
NF - now takes to plan of ward, etc

Or you're just nervous or have dry eye or any one of a number of other ocular or neurological complaints. Body language interpretation's much like reading tea leaves.

Add to all that the balkanisation & attendant failures of internal communication & organisation, & bloating of bureaucracy that Lansley's imbecile Health & Social Care Act 2012 inflicted on the NHS. That's the Act that gave us purely ornamental Health Ministers who couldn't be blamed for anything & could fob off responsibility onto "arms-length managment body" NHS England (which Streeting has wisely decided to shutter) & stupid frolics like private providers contracted to the NHS being permitted to use NHS branding via the utterly pointless bureaucracy of NHS Identity, thus allowing any & all failures on the part of private contractors to be perceived by the public to be wholly NHS failures.

Thanks @NebulousSupportPostcard . I think the discussion about giving evidence remotely was regarding Jo Phoenix who already has flights booked and if she has to change them there will be cost implications. So SC said he'd be happy for her to appear remotely if that helped.
I think the tribunal panel is not sitting on Thursday due to prior commitments and SC wanted to avoid Sue Williams starting before that and then having to go part heard until Friday.

Which leads to the question:

Which witnesses will be giving evidence Friday 7 Nov and then Monday 10 to Wednesday 12 Nov? Assuming the Thursday and Friday are for closing submissions.

I made a scribbled note listening to their discussion. My understanding of that is Sandra Watson on Monday 3rd, then Anna Telford (sp?) (NF may have no Q's), then Sue Williams, then Jo Phoenix currently scheduled for Monday but maybe Friday and maybe remotely. Then closing submissions starting on Monday. So case finished before the alloted time. But I may be wrong.

Bringing in another witness after Jo Phoenix seems unlikely. Hmm, maybe the public discussion on this week's timetable deliberately left out someone else waiting in the wings...

That's a really helpful post. Thanks.

Introducing Anna Telfer the Trust’s New Deputy Director of Nursing :: County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

So many tempting user-names - PergolaOfLesbians, LesbianStack, thelesbianstake, LesbianEstate, TrulyLesbian, PileofLesbians, MyLesbianFriend, LesbianAgenda, Lesbianconcern, LesbianforAll, ButchorFemme, LesbianStars ...

Adding for clarity's sake that I was not impressed by her credibibility as a witness.

There is one very particular type of 'lesbian' who has good reason to think any rule applied to Rose would also apply to them.

I just don't understand the lesbian thing. I have no problem sharing a changing room with lesbians. I have a major problem with changing in front of a man. I remember an event I was at a few years ago - in the evening got chatting with a pair of women who were clearly a couple. Next morning went to the hotel swimming pool with them, communal changing, never occurred to me there might be a problem, You can bet I'd have run screaming if there's been a man in there.

The force-teaming of "lesbians" is incredibly homophobic, I'm not sure what she thought she was trying to demonstrate by including them. I know TRAs like to promote the concept of 'passing' but there is no way to tell someone's sexual orientation. There are certain affectations that may hint at it, but that's not every single person.

On the subject of RH's possible appearance, I doubt it. It will do nothing for the R's case and really only muddies the waters of the C's case. The heart of the matter isn't about RH as a person, it's the policies and practices of the institution which made the situation happen and did little to resolve it.

I keep trying to work out what the air quotes around lesbians meant. My best guess is that TW hadn't heard directly from any lesbians, but had been in conversations that included remarks like "Ooh, what about Sally Bloggs, I bet she's a lesbian, are they going to want her out too?"

So the air quotes were a reflexive communication of the fact that TW didn't know that Sally Bloggs was a lesbian; she only knew that Sandra thought that Sally might be a lesbian and might think that other people might think that was the same as being a man in the changing room.

Just a daft speculation theory.

Edited to add: More fairly to the witness, perhaps she was just trying to indicate that complaints might be made, not just about actual lesbians, but about women who "looked like they might be lesbians" - i.e. so-called lesbians, with the air quotes signalling "so-called".
But, still, that suggests a very vague and speculative suggestion that people might be worrying, not about the facts, but about their perceptions of other people's perceptions ... etc

The Times has finally found some space to report on the trial:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d48086ae-5d95-426c-93b7-9894bb3f3675?shareToken=109c651bf2cea30e06a9fe055aa47f33

It mentions the fragrant Rose is giving evidence…..

Yes, it does, can't wait.

Maybe a bit belated but a good article that seems to concisely cover most of the bases and links to the Peggie case too.