"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

TT

NF you contacted Ms Coppack asking for support from higher management.
SG that was the ask was from the staff. I wasn’t able to implement anything so they wanted to speak management that could

NF you were told support should be provided by you
SG Yes

NF you were asked as part of the investigation about the posters in the room re NMC code and re inclusive changing room.

Another straightforward witness. Seemed honest in her answers and wasn't holding anything back as far as I could tell.

TT

NF inclusive CR poster raised at 6.40 am. In both those cases you told Ms Watson about them. Are members of staff permitted to produce their own posters with trust logo?

SG usually from comms department

J thank you Ms Gregory.
SC discuss timetable then lunch.
J back at 2pm

But again, I was struck by the fact that she seemed a better witness for the claimants than for the respondent.

No, the virtual room - online observers have been split across several "rooms", which I presume makes it easier to manage us.

It's all very secret squirrel with the witness timetable discussion.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1985303512025079965.html

Complex = political, too scared to touch

There seems to be a lot of closed door discussions about the next witnesses, very strange.

From TT, SG was told to support the nurses without being given any means to do it

So, the ' inclusive' poster in the changing room was an official communication it would seem?

So the next witness after lunch at 2pm is Jodie Robinson, another one who was unnamed last week.

I don't think so, she said that she wasn't saying it came from them, just that usually any branded material would come from them.

Yes. 'timetabling issues that won't concern you' from the J is really quite funny given that we could not be keener to know the full cast list!

I think that last week's discussion was more around specific arrangements for Jo Phoenix, and timing for Sue Williams, rather than a full recap on the cast list.

Today's discussion seemed so deliberately low-key about an issue that is obviously going to be of of interest to attendees who have their own schedules to plan around. Which makes it seem very likely that the discussion we are missing is about whether/how RH will be giving evidence.

I imagine that these witnesses are heartily sick of the intransigence/ineptitude of HR/their superiors in dealing with this one bloke.

I'd dump them in it too.

I think somebody was faking it as an official communication by using the Trust logo

Today's discussion seemed so deliberately low-key about an issue that is obviously going to be of of interest to attendees who have their own schedules to plan around. Which makes it seem very likely that the discussion we are missing is about whether/how RH will be giving evidence.

Are there any photos of RH? I can only find one online, and if he turned up looking like that I wouldn't like to be the one defending the position that he's a woman and has every right to be in a female CR. It would blow the stupidity of this matter (even more) wide open. That may be why they want to either keep him out of this, or at least keep the timing of his appearance under wraps.

The fragrant Dr Upton wasn't fooling anybody, but at least he made an effort. (And isn't he another one trying to get his wife pregnant? How very womanly.)

Given that the J is keen to move things on, it’s interesting that he has allowed 90 minutes for lunch.

This seems to imply that whatever has been referred to as timetabling issues may take 30 minutes to discuss.

There are apparently wedding pictures. Both parties in wedding dresses.

If I remember right, I think one of the claimants was asked whether RH appeared like the manly photo when the events in question transpired, and the claimant said yes.

Wearing an elaborate black wedding dress to your own wedding does rather give the impression that he wants to be seen at least as someone who dresses in women’s clothing, though.

I may be remembering wrong but I think it was the judge who asked?

Does this mean the manly photo has been entered as evidence in the bundle?

Could be, glad I am not totally imagining it!