"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

Out of context comment, but I am astonished that RH has not faced any kind of disciplinary investigation given the breadth of concerns raised about his behaviour in the CR. If he had been in the men's CR and colleagues raised that he was hassling them about when they are getting changed / staring at them / commenting on the size of their penises, I'm sure there would have been action taken pretty fast!

We know that the Press Association has been given access to the bundle of documents. They may have been sent them, idk. Possibly the J implied this when addressing the room about public access to documents at the start of yesterday’s session.

Is the press allowed to quote from the witness statements if they were not read out, does anyone know?

The discussions behind closed doors regarding allegations about RH conduct are sexual in nature.

As such the tribunal can ban the reporting of the alleged conduct. Until the decision of the tribunal is handed down.

Since the allegations were in the public domain prior to tribunal, the best the tribunal can do is prevent the allegations being repeated in court.

Which is what probably was hammered out with the closed session before RH took the stand.

the tribunal can not make findings on what he did or did not do, as that would be outside their scope.

they are not allowed to run an investigation that is the proper domain of an employer, nor can they substitute the decisions of internal employer processes as part of their decision no matter how poor or none existent the investigation was.

The tribunal can only make determinations as to the employers behaviour in dealing with the complaints and if that was harrassment and discrimination and detrimental.

See my post of 0.05 this morning

Isn't the correct comparator 'if it was a man hassling women in the women's changing room'?

Though I guess that isn't really a comparator, it's reality

That BBC piece is no longer available. Are local news things usually removed that quickly (genuine question)

No one could carry out a disciplinary investigation - BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TALK TO THE MAN WHO THINKS THEREFORE HE IS A WOMAN.

Since no one can discuss the matter with him or ask him to get his gonads out elsewhere they clearly were incapable of setting out with any clarity the allegations against him:

• You looked at womens breasts
• Asked them to undress for you
• Got naked in front of them
• Had holey boxers and they could see your genetials
• Stared them down
• Gave them a hard stare
• Waited in the room longer than required to change
• Paraded around their wards regularly to intimidate
• Got a list of people who raised a complaint about you
• Got regular updates on who had been intimidated to drop their complaint against you

Oh no we possibly couldn't speak to dear Rose about this. Her lady parts will be all a quiver.

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/rose-gives-evidence-at-darlington-nurses-hearing/

Lead Darlington nurse, Bethany Hutchison gave evidence, which went unchallenged by the Trust that a colleague:

“Told me that she had been in the changing room together with RH, whom she had never spoken to before. She said that it was just the two of them in the room. [She] was pregnant at the time and initially had her back to RH. When she turned around, RH said to her: ‘You do not look as big as this from behind.’ [The nurse] was shocked and made no answer. RH then asked her: ‘Have you got those large pregnancy breasts?’”

Evidence presented included reports of Henderson walking around the hospital swinging 15cm scissors in a manner described as “dangerous and threatening.”
In Rose’s evidence, he has also committed to pursuing an internal complaint against nurses, ‘once their claims are out of the way’.

Jane Shields gave evidence and told the tribunal she came across Henderson “frequently” in the changing room. She added: “It was very clear from his appearance and the clothes that he wears that he is a male. Once I noticed Rose have a shower and then dry himself publicly in the changing room where everyone could see him, although there is space within the shower cubicle to get dressed after a shower. I never saw him fully naked; he would be wearing boxer shorts. But I felt that he wanted to be observed, and he wanted to be noticed. He would stand there in his boxer shorts, very obviously a male. Not many of the women use the shower facilities.”

Gardening done - planted some bulbs for next year.
I have to say the Christian Concern involvement is quite difficult for me (very lapsed Catholic and atheist), but as the Nursing Union is xxxxx useless, I guess needs must.

Should someone warn them that it's the original-style (and best imho) women they need to worry about? But that's a scam, pure and simple.

Gardening done, I hope they hit their target.

For those questioning HR’s use to the business. HR’s job is to minimise risk to the business, ensuring you treat employees lawfully is a key part of this. HR often get involved at a late stage and usually start by making sure no one has fucked up.

The ET cases we have seen usually have HR being ignored. This is a case where HR have really messed up.

The NHS is amongst the largest employers in the UK, so is going to have many diverse employees. But far from being a National service, it delivers through regional trusts, each with their own Boards, policies, diversity leads etc. unfortunately these have adopted trans ideology unilaterally but appear unwilling to row back on those illegal policies until they receive “guidance” from above. Such is the delusion or should I say denial in these local trusts.

is it time to make all trusts and their managers more accountable nationally, because they are not accountable locally and these boards operate largely in their own bubbles.

Thank you for that. The disbelief in her voice at RH's denials is quite something.

The wisdom of Weatherwax

I do sit on a wise head.

Thanks for everyone’s updates yesterday and the craic today. There’s been a bit of a to do at work so I missed the evidence. Is it just JP tomorrow to finish off

businesses that support trans rights are more likely to build strong brand loyalty

Well this is disputable at the very least. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it absolute nonsense.
The truth is closer to "go woke - go broke" these days. People are waking up and don't like what they're seeing.

If the nurses hadn't taken it to tribunal they would still have the old policy in place. So they have done the Trust a favour really, by being the catalyst to getting a legally correct in place. No wonder the Trust has offered no defence.

Employment tribunal judges can order searches of personal phones, though there is no power phones to be seized by the police or anyone as with criminal law, they rely non-compliance resulting in the tribunal finding their statements about what is there less believable. Judges are reluctant to though because
a) tribunals almost never compel, that's the legal culture, and
b) any such order must provide for an examination which respects the owner's privacy, so is complicated to make. (e.g. it would have to state who is to examine the phone, what searches they will make using what keywords, etc. all of which can be contested and argued over).

JP and then submissions next week.

Submissions 10am Tuesday. Monday off for tribunal to read written submissions they will receive that morning.

No idea. Only 5th and 6th are currently available. Don't know if they put it on YouTube?

Longish piece in the Telegraph would suggest that there's a systemic bias in the way the BBC handles trans issues - even accounting for the Telegraph's bias the other way it looks pretty blatant: https://archive.ph/Nm37c

My regional news is routinely available for 24 hours from the start of each broadcast. Then it’s replaced by the next day’s.

On the Q of whether judge will make findings on Rose's behaviour in the CR; I get the point made earlier that the tribunal is there to judge on the Trust's handlling of the allegations, but is his behaviour not relevant to the question of damages, what detriment they suffered because of the repeated breaches of the nurses' rights under the Equality Act ? And also re whether of not there was sexual harassment (unless it is agreed that his presence is automatically sexual harassment because he is Pete the Plumber, in which case what on earth is the Trust arguing about?)

His behaviour cannot be part of the tribunals deliberations because the NHS failed to investigate the allegations or draw any conclusions about his behaviour.

So yes his permitted presence in the CR and and the impact on the complainants, and the failure to properly investigate their complaints will be what the tribunal will consider, a to wether they were discriminated and sexually harassed.

i am not a lawyer or a Foran out in the wild BTW.

so what foxes me is what on earth the defence is, other than they did not cooperate with the “process” and should not have gone to the press.

which does not, without the benefit of the bundles hold any water IMHO

How often we are told that sexual misconduct by men with identities in women’s changing rooms wouldn’t be a problem because there are already laws against sexual misconduct. It would be dealt with under those. No need to ban them. Sexual misconduct is already banned.

And yet that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. What actually happened? The women reporting harassment were harassed even more. Surprised?

A feral Foran would be quite a sight