"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

So when Rose raised a grievance he was interviewed, but the nurses' complaint was dealt with via a letter saying 'do not talking about this!'.

Is that right?

1. Separate window (not tab) for MN.
2. Separate window (not tab) for Twitter on Chrome, not the app.
3. Open Notes window to paste in because otherwise the formatting goes to pot.
4. The note starts "From TT" so I don't have to type it every time.
5. If the copy doesn't pick up a letter at the beginning of the post (J or S or a [) I type it as it's quicker than trying to.get the copy completely accurate.
6. If more than one post I highlight the "." and drag the highlight toget rid of the timestamp and images/refs to TT's username.

So the 26 nurses aren't allowed to talk, but Rose is kept up to speed about who they are/were and which ones are withdrawing their complaints?

Have I misunderstood?

What is NF picking up here? The trust asked that the complaint be handled by a lead complainant.

If there was an incident in a school, each person would be spoken with asap to understand each side of the story and this would limit the co-ordination of stories.

With a lead complainant the trust can't very well accuse the nurses of collaborating.

This!

I am not involved in HR, but I am in a role that is subject to FOI, appeals and Judicial Reviews. I am very careful about what I put in writing, even in the Whatsapp group. Don't put anything that you wouldn't feel comfortable being read back at you at a tribunal.

Shades of Peggie v Fife here…

Trans person complaining -set the red light whoop whoop alarm and jump to it.
Women complaining - kick into the long grass and threaten disciplinary.

Equal treatment? I think not.

Does anyone else get strong Sir Humphrey vibes?

From TT

NF A further msg from u to Rose [reads re interviewing taking place and lists the now 5 who have now withdrawn]
Yes
NF [new bundle] Report at the end of the process and u list the 6 who have withdrawn their names
Yes
NF Incl Sarah Naylor
Yes
NF [new bundle incl your email to her on p497]

NF Your email of Sept 24. Do you want to read it through? Her response is on the prev page at p496. [reads from it about not wanting to cont w the RP] She's saying I dont want to continue w the process but not from the Cx

SW I read it as that. I wrote back to her about withdrawing from the concern and she didnt come back to me
NF U interveiwed Ms Naylor w Sue. U record her as saying in response to 1st hearing about the letter [reads re finding from Beth and thought wasnt a nice letter]

She isn't very bright, is she?

Also I don't read the posts till I've pasted them. Otherwise I'm reacting to the outrage not pasting the outrage.

He looks like an absolute unit.

NF A further msg from u to Rose [reads re interviewing taking place and lists the now 5 who have now withdrawn]

She’s writing to “Rose” and telling him who is no longer involved in the complaint against him?!?

So 5 withdrew? Do we have any idea why? (beyond the obvious)

From TT

SW Alll the amendments are by SN
NF [reads re her saying I do support the staff] Do u understand me? The text in pale red, looks like what she wants removed, re it not being a nice letter
[discussion re highlighted texts and which bits were to be removed from the transcript]
J Does this matter in the scheme of things?

I'm confused, but it doesn't take much and I'm trying to multi-task. Was there a lead complainant, or not? And if there was a lead, when did they become a lead and why?

Discussing the details of complaints being withdrawn, including by whom, seems incredibly sketchy to me?! Is that not a harassment (and potential victimisation) claim waiting to happen?

The sound is awful today.

From TT

NF It will become relevant. On p501, from p499, the text to Miss Naylor...this went to her
SW She's highlighted it and I took it to be an amendment. I dont understand what she meant
NF Then lower down she talks about May 24 mtg w TA.

Sounds very “5 down, 19 to go” ish.

For the oldies, built like a brick shit house.

Proper hur hur hur at the Trumpton Fire brigade roll-call here.

Thank you all for the cut and paste-ing and the commentary.

SC getting a bit snippy this morning!

He is tall enough that when he took the oath standing his head and shoulders did not fit the screen

From TT

She says she'd rather get changed in car park than lose her job
SW I dont know about ? It's not in the notes
SC [intervenes]
NF This relates to harassment of the cs
J The Cs wont have known about his so how is it relevant

From TT

NF It relates to the nature of the process
J Where does this interview take us
NF The Cs case is the process was not only lacking but harmful.
SC But harassment relates to ?
NF There's the time taken..
J I'm concerned about time now
NF Read p991...