"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

I was hoping for 'behaviour that is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional especially if the employer is a government agency. Unconstitutional in this context is apparently "
if it violates the principles of its unwritten constitution, such as parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. Like, for instance, carrying on doing something when you know it's illegal because you're waiting for guidance? Fingers and toes crossed.

I think it's really the abuse of government power that they're getting at with exemplary, rather than just the normal oppressiveness of employers in this situations (or there would be a lot!!) But what would be great would be if a judge took this whole waiting for guidance baloney and said that does not count as belief in compliance and swatted them hard.

Thinking further about whether RH will appear. RH has already provided his evidence in the form of a witness statement. If the Trust want to rely on that to stand as his evidence in chief then they have to 'call' him and give the C's an opportunity to cross examine. SC has referred more than once to what RH has said in his WS. It's only if the C's have agreed not to challenge RH's evidence that the witness statement formally goes into evidence without the need for the witness to attend court. It seems highly unlikely the C's will have said they do not want to cross examine.

So I am even more inclined to think they are keeping it under wraps and RH will make an unexpected appearance.

I don't think they are formally obliged to call RH, even if he has submitted a witness statement, and even if the claimants are challenging his evidence. But if he doesn't appear then the tribunal will have no way to assess his credibilty and will give little to no weight to anything he says that is disputed.

I'm guessing that an Upton make-over is in the works.

I've only ever seen one at our leisure centre - he was wearing what seemed to be a near copy of the attendants' uniforms and a set of comedy boobs* - and I've only seen him once.

Perhaps he's put off by the fact that the pool has a 'changing village', and the gym changing room has a large sign which says 'Female'.

*He reminded me of the Canadian (?) technical teacher.

Yes, they are not obliged to call him but my understanding is that in those circumstances, unless the other party agrees, his statement is effectively not in evidence at all. It's not just left lurking on the record with a question mark of credibility hanging over it. But I'm not an employment lawyer so I don't know for sure and would be interested to hear from someone who is.

Oh yes. Men don't just "manspread" with their bodies. All their stuff gets in on the act too. 😂

An earlier time? How old is this woman? I'm 54 and I don't remember any such time in my lifetime. Maybe in my mother's?

Do you live in the northeast?

I'm younger than you and grew up experiencing a lot of homophobic bullying.

30 years ago was 1995. So no. Go back further. I really don't think that was it. She's just homophobic.

Northwest - meh close enough

That's still going on. I was referring to the time when it was supposedly "unsayable." But hey! We sometimes forget I think that we're the old ones now and the "older generation" we remember acting this way are all dead or at least pretty ancient by now.

The Theatre Manager supported Rose and gave the impression that her team all changed together and had done so for years.

Anyone who wanted to stop Rose changing would have to (supposedly) get through and oppose this team

They were the ones who out the posters on the door.

HR lacked the courage to do this.

I find it all very depressing. I can only speak for my area (Central Scotland).

I was a teacher. Once we reached the noughties, it was finally safe for girls at my secondary school to come out as lesbians. Until then, I'd never heard of a girl coming out.

One of the girls in my high school year (in the 1970s) did eventually come out but I think that it was about 2000 for her too.

By the time I retired - close to 2020 - girls were no longer coming out as lesbians. It was still okay for the boys to come out as gay, but the girls were being celebrated for being 'trans boys'.

I'm certain that peer pressure was a factor - those that I knew all reverted to being girls/women in the end (once they left school). One girl did go back to being a girl while she was at school.

I’m 52 & I do. I realised I was lesbian in the mid-90s & was careful to say nothing at all in my various workplaces because I suspected it wouldn’t go down well.

Same as happened to Man Friday at Hampstead - the men would have chucked them out.

Same generation as you and I do too. I wasn't open at work, it wouldn't have gone well, and a friend who was gay hid it for years as he was a teacher.

On 23 October 2025, BH's husband appeared simply to swear his statement. Neither NF nor SC or the J asked any questions. So at the very least, wouldn't RH need to do this?

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

And even with Section 28, I’m still bloody thankful to have been going through it all then rather than now. At least back then there was a whole lesbian community to come out into instead of the alphabet soup.

Exactly. If the Trust want his statement to go into evidence then he has to appear unless the C's agree that he needn't because they have no questions. That seems very, very unlikely.

We may see something along these lines with Anna Telfour if NF decides he has no questions for her.

Please can someone check my reasoning and information?

The 'theatre mob' which I get a sense are seen, at least by themselves, as the 'proper' theatre team, finish at 6.00, except when they run late. The Day Surgery Unit (inferior!!!) finish at 7.30. (Presumably ditto)

None of the theatre nurses have any problems with RH. All are a tight little unit and defend him. (Or again, so we are told.) Someone puts that sign up, and it's got to be someone in the 'in gang' because no one investigates so some must support him, probably because he's got enough sense not to cause them any trouble.

Yet here we are at minimum 7.30 and Rose is in the changing room in his boxer shorts. I could buy him coming in at say 6.30 and changing on his own because he was shy and modest (as indeed Friday's witness said he was.) Even if he's the world's slowest showerer and has to put his make up on and do his hair (unlikely if he has 3 day old stubble as stated and the pictures don't look as if he's the fancy hair do type, but may well wear a wig) what is he still doing in the changing room in his boxers? I don't know about other people but I shower, get dressed and then do my hair and makeup because that way I don't end up messing it up or getting make up on my top when I put it on.

I didn't start thinking this until the judge asked about the shift times, but can anyone pull this to pieces? Because if they can't then that smell may well be RH's goose cooking.

I have never spent one moment of my life needing to be wary, or in fear, of any lesbian.

Men, on the other hand...