"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

Got to go out now. This women is infuriating. I find her manner, considering this is a most serious matter, like that of a teenager caught out by Mum and Dad. Maybe she's just nervous and it's manifesting in her flippant manner.

From TT

NF She says I signed the letter to promote Rose, me and e'one else. When u hear colleagues talking about a M in the CR. She's asked about where did u hear concerns from and who approached u to sign. She says BH and in honesty I wish I hadnt

J Again, are u taking us to the docs to read
NF It shld be obvious she's frightened
SW SHe's frightened of losing her job
NF She's expressed that in response to Qs from SN. The Qs dont address her concerns.
SW We ask later
NF The Qs are intimidating

What about if you were running an investigation, though?

New thread ready to go: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5439172-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-7

Same here. We’d be in all sorts of trouble if we shredded the handwritten notes.

There was a clarification l, and a … pause

It's just sounding like HR was concerned about nothing else other than conducting a witch hunt to determine and find guilty the dastardly ring leaders of the letter that HR assumed had literally forced others to sign.

Maybe they wanted to discipline as few as possible, so as not to disrupt the service to patients, but felt they had to discipline some for going to the press. In other words, they wanted some ringleaders to act as scapegoats, but 26 was too many.

From TT

SW She says she didnt want it to go this far and she mentions the press
NF [new doc] An email to you from Debra Taylor who'd had the same correspondence as those above
SW In response to Gx from Rose [reading]
NF She was also treating the 2 matters as combined. Did u correct her

I think that is more because of GDPR regs. A CV and interview questions/answers gives you access to a lot of personal data that you have no need to retain.

What the actual.........

From TT

SW No I didnt respond to this email
NF Her interview is on p268. She's asked who had the concerns. When reassured she cld give names she gives Miss Dennis thought RH looking at her. Did u go back yo Miss Dennis
No
SC Is there a partic Q that needs to be put?
NF U received the statements in Oct 24
Yes

Of course the nurses didn't want for it to "go this far". They wanted their complaint to be addressed, not for them to be investigated for making that complaint and then threatened with disciplinary action.

Hmm, what is the Q SC is so keen NF puts to SW? NF indicated he was coming to it.

From TT

NF And you had a further interview w Rose in November
SW Yes
NF [new bundle] On 18 Nov. Y'd had Cs statements for about a month
Yes
NF This relates to the Gx cos of the 26 signatories
Yes
NF Did Rose have a statement
No
NF The statements had a lot of detail re Roses behaviour

From TT

NF But this detail wasnt put to Rose was it
SW Signs on the door were.
NF Yes
SW SN also mentions re hanging around and playing games on the phone.
NF Are u saying they were put to her
SW Thats what Susan put to Rose

Sit still, woman.

They just didn't give a fuck about the women!

I thought that odd too, surely it is up to NF what questions he asks.

Nobody wanted to confront 'Rose' with the allegations.

I think SC has twigged that SW's failure to tell each of the nurses that they WERE NOT being interviewed about Rose's grievance when they were called in for a meeting is a tad bad. It almost looks as if HR might have decided this retrospectively so it dawned on them that it was teeny bit coercive.

NF The statements had a lot of detail re Roses behaviour

I bet they did.

The more senior ones are probably there to intimidate the more junior witnesses. It's unlikely that the nurses were getting novel treatment. Intimidation tactics will be led from the top.

New thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5439172-darlington-nurses-vs-county-durham-and-darlington-nhs-trust-tribunal-thread-7

The only time I did, I don't think I took notes at all - there was someone doing so officially and nothing took place outside the minuted meetings. In the recruitment process I don't recall what we were told (it's a while ago) - I think that it was fine to take notes for our own use during the meeting, e.g. a reminder to self to ask a certain followup question or to mention a certain impression in the discussion at the end, but not keeping notes for ourselves after that was part of the confidentiality of the process. I'd expect an investigation to be similar tbh - I could understand handwritten notes being handed in and archived, but having individuals involved keep their own seems to be asking for trouble. IANAL or HR person though!