"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 7

[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)
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11)

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

Would anyone know how or why the person (senior nurse?) who handed out the 26 letters to the claimants was not obliged to give evidence as a witness? I'm sure there is a valid reason but I can't seem to get back far enough to see why.

Today's witness said that the investigation had been paused:

From TT:
NF [reads next steps in?] [sounds glitching] U explained that mtg w Rose in RP but would be looked at under diff policies. Her (sic) GX was moved to ?? How was it decided
SW In disc w Rose, SN and her rep Ronnie
NF Any notes of that mtg
SW I don't know
NF So grievance remained hanging over the Cs
Yes
NF And remains hanging over them to this day
SW Yes. And they'd have to declare this remains in place.
NF Were the Cs consulted at all
SW It wld be under the RP. In hindsight they shld have been made aware Rose's resolution was paused.

I do not trust "HR" an inch, regardless the outcome of this tribunal.

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

Perhaps she is such a transmaiden that even Darlington's legal spotted that she'd do them far more harm by opening her mouth under oath; far better for everybody to assume the worst.

There appears to be an absence of an instructing solicitor for the defendants (or are they simply not named by TT)?

Each side decides who to call as witnesses. So the Trust is responsible for not calling the senior person who handed out the letters.

The misfiled May minutes reminded me of Yes Minister again

• Bernard Woolley: Shall I file it?
• James Hacker: Shall you file it? Shred it!
• Bernard Woolley: Shred it?
• James Hacker: Nobody must ever be able to find it again.
• Bernard Woolley: In that case, Minister, I think it's best I file it.

3 April: The Director of Workforce at the Trust re-published the ‘Transitioning in the Workplace Policy’, reiterating that a biological man can use the women’s changing rooms

Didn't they then withdraw it a month later and there is now no Policy in place?

Which means the previous Policy would still apply, under a Status Quo agreement, until such time as it is revised or replaced.

So withdrawing it without replacing or revising it effectively leaves the Policy in place.

The Claimant could still have called her, if they had wanted to, as a Hostile Witness.

Reflecting back I was concerned at the start that the nurses didn’t fully engage with the internal processes. They in part kept because saying SW was involved. Having now read TT I can see why SWs involvement was inappropriate.

What really comes across is everyone was wedded to the policy being right. To be fair the policy originally was in line with most hospitals, civil service etc. However, no one had the sense to get a solicitor to give a legal opinion on the specific complaint.

Haldane in December 2022 did clarify sex = biological sex + GRC legal sex. However, how do you establish which TW has a GRC and which does not. A practical issue for many employers. I do know there were exceptions but employers chose not to use them.

The SC judgement really did make all the policies unlawful.

Interesting that Ronnie the Rep attended that meeting but has not been mentioned much before or since.

Which union is Ronnie the Rep from?

Bet it's the RCN who then sent a letter like they were swooping in to save the day (despite possibly having refused to represent the nurses?)

So he wasn't retiring he was pushed out for objecting to the nonsensical farce the trust was putting his nurses through?

However, no one had the sense to get a solicitor to give a legal opinion on the specific complaint

I thought one of the HR witnesses said that they had been given advice by the Trust solicitors?

He's a Unison rep.

https://www.synchronicitycare.co.uk/a-day-in-the-life-of/

(edit to add link)

Thank you for clarifying,

I think it is Ronnie Nicholson of Unison (but have no proof).

edited to add: County Durham Health | UNISON Branch Finder

It really is very odd in the light of all this that the overarching NHS bodies didn't and still haven't been absolutely clear that these policies are no longer for individual trusts and organisations to determine.

They could sort this all out very very easily.

I must have missed that. Sorry.

Thank you @misscockerspaniel and @POWNewcastleEastWallsend

at least Unison are consistent I suppose....

Sarah Phillimore's Substack post of 2nd Nov:

Gender Wars: What have we won, and what have we lost?
What does winning look like? Has our victory in the Gender Wars revealed we have won the battles but lost the most important war?

"I have spoken before about my naivety that we would restore sanity to our public institutions regarding their unlawful elevation of ‘gender identity’ over sex with a few well placed and decisive court victories, so I won’t labour that point. However, back in 2019 it was not unreasonable to think this would work, coming as I did then from a perspective that fundamentally our public institutions were, in the main, True and Good, staffed by people who were, in the main, intelligent and conscientious.

This girlish fantasy was of course soon ground into dust by proof after depressing proof that despite a string of important tribunal and appellate victories, we had lost medicine, academia, journalism, the law, and politicians. Thank whatever deity you believe in, we had not lost the higher courts. But still I refused to face the even more terrible prospect that lay behind that bleak vista - what if we can’t ever get them back?"

"If all our Victory has achieved is to shine a light on the collapse of our public institutions then this is certainly not what I thought Victory would look like. The Government can and hopefully will face a judicial review over its handling of the guidance, if it does not reverse its unlawful position. Once again, individuals will have to step up to force the state to recognise the rule of law. But what else can we do? Sit back and watch it happen? I do not think any of us will be doing that."

Full article:
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/gender-wars-what-have-we-won-and

So much time, money, effort, legalities (or lack thereof), meetings, staff appointments (to dubious sounding roles) and so on, all for what - ensuring adherence to a TITWP policy? The fundamental role of the NHS is as a HEALTH SERVICE to the public, not an organisation that seems to spend a heck of a lot of its time supporting TiMs at the expense of the nurses trying to provide said health service.

It's mad Ted.

Having read that stuff from CLC, the nurses comments in evidence along the lines of 'well, it's clear this case isn't the end of it' were well founded. SC more than once implied they were just paranoid and everyone was still employed and no-one had anything to worry about. Yeah, right...

I do wonder what Ronnie's take on all this was....

Porters are generally very straight forward types.

The bravery of these women is unquantifiable.

I know that I would not have been able to keep going in the context they've been forced to survive.

They do at least know that a minimum of 40 other people are work are rooting for them, which hopefully helps

Caught up at last!
Thank you to the "scribes"
I didn't think I could be any more shocked by this case but every day brings some new craziness.
Oh- why do the press keep saying Rose is a nurse? Have I missed something?

Get well soon Myrtle 😊

I think in an earlier case one of our lawyer friends explained that that is hardly ever done - that it usually works better to draw conclusions from the fact that the other side have not called someone who, if their case were correct, would have been able to say so. I connected it with the dictum "never ask a question you do not know the answer to".

'Our NHS' is wasting our actual money on this ideological grandstanding