"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 6

[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)
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9)

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, NHS 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
AT – Anna Telfer, NHS Deputy Director of Nursing
SW – Sandra Watson, Matron for General and Elective Surgery
JR – Jodie Robinson, manager of Rose

NF And for reference, that's in the bundle, no 3 at p998.
SW Yes, that's correct. It's the Ix notes
NF Roses Gx overlapped the 26 sig Cx?
SW Were common aspects but wldnt say it mirrored it. On her resoln form was obvs what her concern was
NF Well yes, but did u not so a high deg of overlap

SW There was some overlap.
NF U interview Rose about Rose's Gx. Go to [new page]
NF Shld say there were other interviews related to RHs Gx eg AM at p607.
SW That relates to 27 March letter. The Ix SN was doing.
NF U interveiwed Rose related to Roses's Cx
SW Yes relates to that

Just plopping on to ask a Q which has probably already been asked and answered.
Why is this witness saying that she's been following what's been happening so far in the tribunal?
I thought that at SP's tribunal witnesses were under strict instructions NOT to follow proceedings.
What's the difference between the two set ups?

I hate to use corporate jargon but there was not a lot of thinking outside the box with this lot. They are all so "Computer says no".

I want to shake them!

SW Interviewed AM and Miss Atkinson on same day
NF These later notes arent incl in the Appendices [reads re absolute confidentiality and dont discuss w others] U were aware of ET claim and the media involvement
Yes NF So too late to insist on confid
SW No, is in all our internal processes

It was the policy, godammit!

Different countries

I'm back! Thank you @Madcats

From TT

SW Its to maintain integrity of process
NF Its a collective Cx
Yes
NF Isnt it saying the C cant collaborate
SW We asked for a lead complainant
NF So just deal w a nominated spokesperson
SW Yes is our standard practice but we didnt have one in this sitn

Wow. That's a huge difference in process. Thanks Beetle

SW Its to maintain integrity of process
NF Its a collective Cx
Yes
NF Isnt it saying the C cant collaborate
SW We asked for a lead complainant
NF So just deal w a nominated spokesperson
SW Yes is our standard practice but we didnt have one in this sitn

NF So they pass all the info over to all the others
SW Yes
NF On p535, ?to CG on 9 July 24 from AT. A similar sort of letter about the RP and following it.
Yes
NF There's a para about handling info in the process but not one of a sim nature to what we've just described on p535

Blessed be the Regulations!

It's because in ETs in Scotland the witnesses evidence happens when they're cross-examined in the hearing while in E&W they commit to their evidence beforehand by submitting a witness statement. Because in E&W there's an incentive not to change their story in response to what a previous witness has said, things can be more relaxed in them watching previous witnesses.

It’s just more evidence why men shouldn’t be allowed in women only areas. They think that dressing like a women, taking hormones etc makes them a woman. But they think in a completely different way than a woman. They don’t know the fear of being sexually abused that women do. They are used to stripping off and showering together. Most women aren’t.

...Just not those pesky Health and Safety ones, which we will ignore!

NF So too late to insist on confid
SW No, is in all our internal processes

Good luck at enforcing confidentiality on information which has already been shared, process or otherwise.

From TT

SW Its to maintain integrity of process
NF Its a collective Cx
Yes
NF Isnt it saying the C cant collaborate
SW We asked for a lead complainant
NF So just deal w a nominated spokesperson
SW Yes is our standard practice but we didnt have one in this sitn

NF So they pass all the info over to all the others
SW Yes
NF On p535, ?to CG on 9 July 24 from AT. A similar sort of letter about the RP and following it.
Yes
NF There's a para about handling info in the process but not one of a sim nature to what we've just described on p535

SW Yes but we had a lead complainant in CG. She was the spokesperson. This is what was said in letter of March 24
NF It doesnt contain the confid para. If thats standard wording on 659 it doesnt appear in this leeter on p?
SW I dont kno. I didnt write the latter

SW Yes but we had a lead complainant in CG. She was the spokesperson. This is what was said in letter of March 24
NF It doesnt contain the confid para. If thats standard wording on 659 it doesnt appear in this leeter on p?
SW I dont kno.
I didnt write the latter (letter?)

I'm rather surprised that they didn't bother to search on all the key words. How can they possibly have managed to have provided all of the requested, relevant information? Shades of Fife, again.

But @Madcats a man might have felt slightly uncomfortable!

From TT

It's not identical but similar
NF Letter was hand delivered to the ward, p 619.
Yes
NF And handed personally by Ms Copper, assoc dir of nursing
NF How many levels above the nurses
Yes. She's 4 levels above
NF [reads re inapprop action cld lead to discip action]

NF So the Cs were handed a letter w that para heralding an Ix into their concerns. Wld that para as alomost the final piece of information. y've heard that some ppl found it untimidating
SW Yes. I can understand some ppl feeling anxious about it

Myrtle I don't know how you do it! Thanks

From TT

[sound issues]
NF The Ix then progressed?
SW Yes [go to new bundle p1004]
NF Email fro u to Rose cced to Nicholson [reads re 3 ppl have withdrawn their concerns but not given names]
SW Yes, I understood as they's withdrawn

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the I didn't think argument. They have thought - either the process was I would feel uncomfortable in the men's in a dress so I want to change with the ladies - so they ought to understand that the flip side of the coin is that ladies might be uncomfortable with a man in a dress in their changing room and think it is less important that they are. Or the process is I want to be in the ladies to validate myself so that is where I'm going. Either way the actual underlying thought is that the ladies don't matter as the man is centred either for comfort or for validation.

Are all the Claimants still employed by this Trust?

No - one no longer works there - I think the one who gave evidence remotely as she's now in Scotland?