"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 8

[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)
Thread 7, 05-Nov to 11-Nov; SW (day 11), closing submissions

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 now complete. Submissions are being made on November 11th. 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

TT

encounters then reaction of Rose to their complaint.
J visits to DSU ?
NF victimisation and harassment
J DSU visits is conduct. But you say visits, looking , staring , related to sex. Why?
NF all women
J the conduct targeted at women

Listening to questions from J, to both counsel, he's no slouch is he?

TT

NF yes - connected to complaint of CR Harassment claim Trust conduct also relates to complainants sex because at heart of their complaint is sex

TT

J case law?
NF ‘you can’t have that (CR) because of your biological sex’ Conduct also overlaps with victimisation claim

[I have to leave at 12.45 I'm afraid. Is anyone able to pick up from then?]

TT

NF tribunal to see that conduct unwanted and such as to affect the claimants working environment all the way through. A catalogue of rebuttal, trivialisation , obfuscation, delay and intimidation. That’s where we cross into purpose.

'Ideology was on the other side' has echoes of Giselle Pelicot's 'Shame must change sides, which I suspect is a deliberate placing by NF.
Well played.

I'll pick up now for as long as I can manage, IDareSay.
Thank you.

I cant @IDareSay , I have really dreadful blepharitis, can’t see well enough. Thanks for this morning though.

I'm poised like a something-or-another ready to transcribe but TT is slow updating!

Thanks to all involved in the c&p'ing. I'm reading in the office today. I had to sit on my hands when SC was summing up - even 3rd hand it made me v angry!!

TT

NF para 64. Taking in turn, SC said I hadn’t got into specifics, I had above. The effect was Rose used CR with claimants.
J use of, conduct.
SC submits policy does not amount to conduct.
J I’m not going that far
NF the policy has an effect on environment
J does it matter even if a TW doesn’t use?

Over and out from me! Thanks for picking up @MarieDeGournay

NF para 64. Taking in turn, SC said I hadn’t got into specifics, I had above. The effect was Rose used CR with claimants.
J use of, conduct. SC submits policy does not amount to conduct.
J I’m not going that far the policy has an effect on environment
J does it matter even if a TW doesn’t use?

I don't mind counsel with a shit case playing with a straight bat even if this means they have to say mad stuff.

NF yes
J if we were with SC arguments on conduct that poss bc presence unwelcome and provocative, that may affect the way people interpret actions eg a look is a stare. IF we were with him we’re back to presence. It’s about apprehension
NF Yes , violating dignity etc

If they had that policy you would have to anticipate it and be ever vigilant.

[NF still] Any female being made aware of that policy - this case demonstrates that. It did apply. Biological male was using and CR involves changing to underwear. Part of the apprehension

@NebulousSupportPostcard Christian concern is not a registered charity. Hence they have a solicitor to whom the funds will be transferred.

"For this reason, in order to start fundraising on CrowdJustice, we will need to confirm that you:
a) have officially instructed a lawyer that funds raised can be transferred to;
b) have a lawyer who is willing to accept instruction from you, pending funds being raised and transferred*."

NF ordinary use is changing to underwear
J allegations against Rose are normal behaviour - walking in underwear, stares interpreting behaviour
NF difference between sexes a vital consideration. In a CR people do chat in underwear

I have never seen a woman in a communal changing room do anything other than hurry to cover up.

They is no wafting around naked, chatting away. Women will usually keep their towel on to change underwear, so they are not seen.

BTW I'm not on X so I'm transcribing from Nitter
Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) | nitter.poast.org

J standing and looking you say that conduct ..? Why does it relate to sex?
NF because happening in a female CR. Because Rose is identifying
J does it not follow that any conduct even speaking relates to sex
NF yes it applies whenever Rose is there

I've been shouting at the CVP.

Men do not understand how women live in the world.

Correct sir.

Women were forced to take this all the way to the Supreme Court to confirm the law of the EqA, because all the organisations abandoned women and the law at the bidding of activists. And yes Judge, you would be one of the first to look at this situation with the law having been clarified.