"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

Yup. One of the reasons that Nurse Peggie has so much support from ordinary Fifers is that we’ve seen the photos of Katie D and Tiffany S. We know the reality.

Rose can not be compelled to appear unless the tribunal issues a witness order. So maybe he has refused to attend and the tribunal have opted not to pursue it. IANAL but what inferences the tribunal can make from that was discussed by a lawyer on the Sandie Peggie thread. My memory of that is that any evidence they may have given would be at best considered to lack credibility and may be entirely disregarded.

@pontefractals there are some arguments, that are wrong in my view of course but are key to rooting out Stonewall law - if you look at the comments, the recommendations to the TW poster are "check the Equality impact assessment and have in writing how it lines up with existing trans policies, and how it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employers have a burden of proof to back up the decision"

So the mirror image of that becomes - impact assessments, trans inclusion policies and compliance with legitimate aims are all very important to maintain single sex spaces. So when policies are not fit for purpose and impact assessments are MIA, it leaves space for men to continue to demand the right to access to single sex spaces.

My impression was that they were people who made complaints prior to the letter signed by the 26. It wasn't clear whether they were signatories to that too.

It is not outing to use a gender neutral place to change. You may just do so for reasons of modesty, including religious reasons. If all your workmates are supportive they can use it too.

So we have a short day tomorrow, nothing on Wednesday afawk, nothing on Thursday as someone (? on the panel) is unavailable, and then Professor Phoenix remotely on Friday.

As JP was originally down for next Monday, last Friday when they were considering moving her witness date, was this Wednesday mentioned? She may well have other commitments which make it impossible but I don’t remember hearing that.

Unless Wednesday is indeed booked for something secret.

Did you read the one about Naomi 'attack dog' Cunningham representing the Darlington Nurses. The kindest thing I can say is 'should've gone to Specsavers!'

@anyolddinosaur yes, the "missing witness rule" as set out in Wisniewski v CMHA.

I wonder what testimony RH would give that would be additional material evidence in the case and that would be crucial to the claim? There's no dispute that RH is male, was using the women's changing room, and the trust did nothing about this for years despite complaints.

Yes, except that the early finish was referring to today, not tomorrow. Although tomorrow may finish early too.

No days other than Monday and Friday have been proposed for JP so I think the assumption must be her availability was limited to that.

Wednesday is a mysterious black hole.

In the previous case involving some of these witnesses the HR processes seem to have worked much better and the claimants in that case won on only 2 aspects (with a much larger number rejected), which I think were related to not dealing properly with complaints.

In this case, acknowledging that the basis of the complaints is entirely different, there appears to be a complete absence of proper investigation - perhaps because the complaints went against trust policy. If so, that doesn't appear at all defensible. Has any explanation for this repeated failure been given? What is the fundamental basis of the Trust's defence

Jane Shields has written a witness statement. Also reported in the press as an Anesthetic Nurse.

I think it's very important for men to see the pictures. Ime, men need the visuals much more than women.

It is a good insight though. I was a bit shocked how far their basic asdunptions about the law are from twhat the supreme court has actually explained. It illustrates that the 'confuse everything' method that glp and others are using will be somewhat effective in the short term. If he gets 'advice' from transactual and then goes to the union, unless his employer are really sure of themselves he might make things worse for the womem in his workplace for a bit.

One reason that RH's appearance is coming up alot is because the nurses pointed to it as a factor in their initial raising of the issue.

His workmates are so accepting. Perhaps he can ask them to share the gender neutral changing room with him. I didn't see that offered as a solution.

@Manderleyagain comments which i concur with brings me to the issue of the Unions.

It is clear that the unions have signed this extreme policy off.

So that added to the “complexities” of the issue.

as a trade unionist myself, i am so pissed off with all of them who have become nothing more than moribund organisations who are completely remote from the workforce they are supposed to represent. (Not least on this issue)

I would like to see every last union who have signed up to TWAW to be dragged through the courts and be given a bloody good public flogging metaphorically speaking.

They are as culpable as the NHS IMHO.

I hope Sandie nails them down in her efforts, re the RCN.

Listening, I was also left with the impression that witness evidence would be concluding tomorrow and assumed there would be nothing on Wednesday, but thinking more about this, it was simply unclear and Wednesday is, as far as we know, CriticalCondition's mysterious black hole.

I think there are two witnesses tomorow. One of them is an HR Business Manager, Sue Williams, about whom SC said it was important not to have her evidence hanging over her on the Thursday when the tibunal was schedued to have a day off. So it is possible that her evidence may take some time?

The only thing that gave me a litte hope that RH may appear in some form (whether in person or remotely, and either privately or publicly) is that the judge dismissed everyone but the counsels for the discussion about the remaining witnesses.

I thought the Sue Williams issue was that it was her daughter's 18th on the day she was scheduled, so if they split it over two days she'd have a massive hangover. Or was that someone else?

@Hedgehogsrightsarehumanrights I had a quick google to find out when UNISON first included a reference to "transgender" alongside LGB - appears to have been as far back as 2005. And in case anyone has ever wondered about what just one dedicated activist can do on committees, in 2013 a transwoman was elected chair of Unison's national LGBT committee, and then left UNISON for Stonewall Scotland in 2017. This is the work of many decades, by dedicated activists.

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2024/02/union-keeps-making-lgbt-history/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/phillippa-lauren-scrafton-0629343a/

Yes that was Sue Wiliams. I don't think SC was referring to an alcohol-reated hangover, he seemed to be making a polite plea that it was a special family occasion and they woud appreciate it if her evidence could be finished (presumaby so she could relax and so her daughter wasn't negatively affected by the stress hanging over her mother's head).

Yes, I was being facetious there. He was trying to treat her kindly.

I wonder whether the tribunal lawyers read these threads, because they’d realise that being cagey about RH won’t get them very far!

I know a lot of nice things have been said about this judge but he really does seem like a sensible person who is trying to put people at their ease. Nurses and (most) NHS managers in their day jobs do not encounter legal proceedings often, if ever, and people who are nervous or scared are probably less likely to be able to help a judge resolve a complex situation.

On the mystery of Schrödinger’s Rose - witness or not.

When SC was questioning the HCAs and Nurses he said ‘but Rose will say X or Y’ quite a few times.

Example below from Karen Danson on 22 October morning and afternoon sessions

”SC Wearing?
KD Tight black pants w holes in them. he was getting changed in CR wearing nothing but boxers. It was the end of day so presume was changing - was half dressed I'd say
SC The allegation is Rose asked you if getting changed 3 times
SC Rose will say Rose didnt know u and had no reason to ask you
KD I'm not mistaken at all”

“SC Rose will say Rose didnt know u and had no reason to ask you
KD I'm not mistaken at all“

It seems an odd slip repeated statement from SC if he knew RH was not going to give evidence. He could have said RH has given a statement saying X or Y.

However as it hasn’t been discussed further and the references tailed off I thought RH maybe wasn’t doing to turn up.

Maybe not in open court but I don’t see how that would be open justice and EJ Sweeney has seemed pretty good on that point.