"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

From TT

NF She says u interveiwed
SW I dont recall this. You'll see [sound issues]
NF We do see handwritten notes at points in the bundle.
SW Mine were shredded.
NF She felt u leaded the interview and not SN
SW SN led the interveiw
NF U chased her re the minutes. An email at p290

Very early on@Justabakersaid that it seemed that the Trust had taken on board the Supreme Court judgment in how they were going to run their case.

It leads to a hearing with far less insane pronouncements that's for sure.

Maybe barmaid in the film, but not in the book.

I noted in the previous session, when the camera faced the court, that Andrew Moore still looks like he'd rather be anywhere but there, head in hands, swinging his chair and looking glum. Tracy Atkinson did a fab Hinge and Bracket style move to clean her glasses by breathing on them and wiping them on her jacket. And Andrew Thacker still looked pink and cross.

Surely to goodness only one person needs to be there to represent the Respondents/Trust in court. If it's a case of giving instruction to counsel, then surely any of the aforementioned are senior enough to do so and report back to everyone else if needed? Don't they trust each other?

WHY?

From TT

NF Take a moment to read this. She's saying [reads re shld have stopped the interview / was confrontational and no emphasis on finding a resoln] She wanted a resoln re the CR
SW [missed]
NF Principle problem was about a male using the CR
SW It was one of the concerns

Yep. It was a witch hunt. Absolutely no engagement as to the reason/substance of the complaint, solely about finding out who was leading the charge and daring to say something.

I have understood that right - 45 nurses came to HR/complaint meetings?

Not necessarily.

I have no earthly idea. 🤯

NF Principle problem was about a male using the CR
SW It was one of the concerns

FFS

NF We do see handwritten notes at points in the bundle.
SW Mine were shredded

That was just passed over? No dramatic pause? No exaggerated shock in NF's voice as he asked 'Did you say that your handwritten notes were...<turns dramatically to face SW> shredded?
I know, I know, a tribunal isn't like that, but...😮

So all these meeting were just a witch hunt. None of their concerns were addressed. FFS

[Obviously we are waiting for the Tribunal Tweets coverage and commenting on that...]

She is coming over as smug and very slippery. Her own handwritten notes get shredded.

I remembered there were 45 unhappy staff from an earlier point in the hearing, searched Twitter, and found that tweet that seems to confirm my recollection.

From TT

NF It isnt raised at all
SW It was addressed in the outcome
NF It prompts withdrawal and causing her to feel confronted
SC I think thats a submission rather than a Q
SW I cant comment how she felt
NF Her response is on p289
Yes

'What were the other concerns?'

Oh wow. The numbers are amazing anyway, given the hardships women complainants have to go through, but those numbers are really telling of how this is likely to snowball once women start winning their cases.

From TT

NF [reads re resolution] Did you not understand [sound glitch]
NF Why did you ask
SW For clarity
NF Turn to p325. Invitation to interview for Miss Dennis who'd had the same info
Yes
NF The notes from her interview are on p?

How convenient that SW shreds her handwritten notes once they've been typed up. I'd like to hear about the shredding policy please, if indeed there is one. Because it doesn't seem to apply to or be followed by everyone.

Agreed.

I've been involved in recruitment processes overseen by HR in a cautious organisation, and have had to either hand in my handwritten notes or confirm to HR that I've shredded them. So I'm not surprised by that part.

Where's our algorithm?

We need to make sure that we are not misfiling a concern, when it could be a rumbling, an issue, a complaint, a grievance or a noise in the system....

If we stick it in the wrong pile then we cant progress it, assess it, or take any action or reach an outcome....can we?

You keep your hand written notes to protect yourself ...
... but you might also shred them to protect yourself

I can't speak for the NHS, but in my area of work handwritten and contemporaneous notes are primary data and are permanently archived for inspection by government agencies at any point in the future. Deliberately destroying them is gross misconduct.