"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

Q: What does success look like?

A: To get all of the complainants to withdraw, even if they stil felt their complaints were valid.

That's bad HR right there.

I'm running late today and just joined so this is a general qu not asking about live feed. Am I right in thinking that RH's counter grievance had the effect of causing many of the original 26 to withdraw their signature and input from the 'petition' letter?

You mean the names of withdrawn complainants not sounding foreign?
Because it was mentioned upthread that they may have been nurses from overseas worried about putting their heads above the parapet..

Yes.

I cannot possibly imagine why Miss Wood didn't want to continue with the process.

Really, I have no idea.

Also interesting that "a manager" passed on that she didn't want to continue.

I mean the harping on about the lack of a lead complainant.

The names thing?

I note the very common or garden English names because the reason for other complaints being withdrawn was stated to be because overseas staff were concerned re working permits being withdrawn.

NF is now discussing nurses who would appear to be from the UK (assumptions) withdrawing their complaints (and neatly illustrating this was due to threats from the trust)

I think this possibly means there were many many more complainants initially and the numbers dwindled as the screws were turned.

I would love to know whether anyone even bothered to discuss anything g with the overseas cohort at all, because it seems they dropped out early enough for the trust to not even record who they were (which means they were not reassured, offered support or given information on appropriate channels for raising issues in future.).

If I've got it right, Hr decided their policy was they needed to deal with a lead complainant, while simultaneously expecting the nurses not to speak to each other about the matter.

From TT

[reads re withdrawing concern that changed to no interest in continuing the CX. Change made by SN
Yes
NF So CG only included as withdrawn because of SN
SW We knew CG had said she wasnt the lead C. I didnt withdraw Clare. this was b4 the Ix started.

SW Susan drafted the Qs for the IX and I added in collab w her
NF Email to u from SN re Qs for witnesses
Yes
NF U finalised the Qs for Cs and witnesses
SW Yes
NF Reading thru the Qs, their focus is on the bringing of the Cx rather than its substance

SC No, Q4 is about the substance of the Cx
NF These Qs ask about how ppl heard of concerns, whether approached re a petition, how they find out about the Cx, Did they know who was approached. Was a Q re the concerns but no programmed Q about why the person is aggrieved

SC There are specific Qs
NF The Qs focus on how the Cx came about rather than the substance
SW These were the Qs they were to be asked of the signatories
NF These are users of the CR rather than just witnesses. The heart of the Cx was Rose using the CR
Yes

I think this possibly means there were many many more complainants initially and the numbers dwindled as the screws were turned.

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1983493806604324982

I guess it saved them from speaking to 26 different women in a timely manner and discovering that they shared very similar experiences

Much easier for her to make a wrong step allowing the claim to be dismissed
Much easier to crush a lone woman than a group of 26

NF doing a good job here of showing that the actual concerns of the nurses were less important than the fact that they had dared to make a complaint about Rose.

God almighty. 🙄

From TT

NF This was controversial as Rose is a bio man
SW Yes, for those raising the Cx
NF This wasnt addressed in the Qs - a bio man using the CR. They were asked about the concerns they'd heard about. When did u 1st hear, how and what were they.

NF You were involved in interviewing Kirsten Coutts (KS) Maiden and married name. U invite her to interview and she'd had the letter at 263 from AT in July
Yes
NF Also yr letter re Roses GX althought that's no in the Gx. She understood the interview was re Rose's Gx

SW [she answers re emails on p266] It's about the concerns in letters on March and April
NF Yes. [sound glitching] At p272, we see KS wasnt sure about that. Have u read it recently
SW Not recently [reads]
NF U respond on p271

Is this the line of questioning the judge was trying to shut down before the poo break? (NB is it a male thing to poo in the middle of the day rather than first thing?)

'No one has ever complained'

'Only one person complained'

'Only a few people complained'

'Those who complained were conspiring'

'Those who complained wouldn't put forward a lead'

'Those who complained were offered to withdraw or be subject to disciplinary action'

'Those who complained and wouldn't withdraw were subject to a counter claim'

'No one ever complains.....'

It is all a mystery.

One thing I’ve just realised, yes I can be slow on the uptake sometimes. To the best of my recollection, no-one has said RH is a woman, no-one has said they don’t know their sex.

It’s accepted RH is a man who has transitioned to be a TW. The Trust’s policy allows TW to use FSSS and TM to use MSSS.

This is a change from other ETs where there has been a lot of time spent on arguing about pronouns, whether people can change sex etc,

Did i just hear her correctly: They shredded the handwritten notes?

I know! wtf?

It would seem - to me, at least - that there's a divide and conquer approach here.

Pick one off, make them "lead complainant" - a role no-one will want - so in the event that the whole thing isn't withdrawn because no-one steps forward, "Process as Punishment" principles will apply and only one person needs to be ground down into oblivion under an onslaught of harassment, bullying and BeKindery.

The investigation was only ever about the complaint having been made in the first instance, rather than the actual substance of the complaint - which related to having to get changed in front of a man in the female changing room.

From TT

NF Here we see the 1st separation. I took u to an email before the break. We'll need to interview later re the Gx, this was decided to be later at a diff time.
Yes
NF The interview notes are on p285, KS said u interviewed her and gave yr pronouns
SW I introduced myself as Miss Williams

Thank you Sideways.

Others may have a better answer, but I believe they were overseas employees and the threat of disciplinary action might have jeopardised their visa/right to work - certainly if they lost their job.