Sara Morrison v BFF thread 4

[MarieDeGournay]

continuation

From NW

KP yes
NC you didn’t get any info from Bethany O’Neill
KP no
NC and the truth is it didn’t matter because you knew you weren’t the decision makers in this process.
KP we provide HR services
NC there were four complaints - 2 from outburst arts but no complaints from the women’s sector
KP no
NC and no evidence on damage to rep
NC and no evidence on damage to rep
KP soc med
NC and there was no evidence of damage to commercial success - you weren’t really in a position to interrogate the reason for the iv as you didn’t have any evidence beyond what MD told you
KP and SM and the WS from Moyra Lock etc
NC SM could not know the process
KP she didn’t engage, she didn’t attend the iv
NC stepping back the decision making process about how she is going to be investigated - she’s not going to know anything about
KP seems to agree [she’s gone v quiet]
[NC takes her to her email of 13 Dec 2023 to Lisa Barros D’Sa (LBD)]
NC is there anything there that strikes you as misleading
KP no I’m happy with it
[NC establishes KP was there for note-taking “support and guidance” and LBD is carrying out the iv]
NC you didn’t ask any q’s of MC did you
KP no
NC and you didn’t ask any qs of MD either did you
KP no I don’t think so
NC takes her to this email “Dear Sara,
I hope this email finds you well. As per your response on the 29th of December, in which we had offered

Was there a sharp intake of breath when you said, nonchalantly, actually, I am weegielass on Mumsnet.

Ah sorry.

I was thinking maybe MC but get you now

From NW

NC establishes KP was there for note-taking “support and guidance” and LBD is carrying out the iv]
NC you didn’t ask any q’s of MC did you
KP no
NC and you didn’t ask any qs of MD either did you

KP no I don’t think so
NC takes her to this email “Dear Sara,
I hope this email finds you well. As per your response on the 29th of December, in which we had offered

you the opportunity to attend another grievance hearing, you declined and stated you wished to respond
via email.
As you are aware, Keara Paterson, Senior HR Consultant from Think People is assisting me in this

investigation. As part of this investigation, we have some questions attached, which will provide us with
nore information on some of the allegations you raised in your grievance.

If you could please review the attached questions and respond to me no later than Monday 15 January
2024 by 4pm. Please also include the names of any witnesses, or evidence you feel will be relevant to our
investigations.

If you have any questions regarding this please get in touch.
Kind regards
Lisa”

NC So LBD is taking charge of the written q’s too
KP yes
NC “the reality is that your role was little more than an administrative role wasn’t it?”
KP “no”

NC “can you recall any occ on which you gave HR advice and said this is what you need to do from an HR perspective?”
KP scripts, line of q, procedure, Teams calls, the report was written by myself in convo with LBD

NC so if all relevant material had been disclosed we would see emails from you, commentary on those draft scripts
SD such info has been disclosed - and there is a suggestion it hasn’t

NC fair point. I apologise - there should be in existence email corr between you and LBD
KP there should be, yes
NC and written advice from you
KP there were mainly Teams convos - brief

NC and do you normally record them
KP no
NC would you send an email
KP normally I would if it was unclear or there was a long conversation but in this instance LBD was happy

with what I told her
NC we go to note of meeting with Mary Lindsay - she’s part time, junior to MD and not a board member
KP yes
NC you ask q’s of her in her iv

Sweet Mary, Joesph and the baby Jesus

I can’t look - the photo in court today was awful enough.

What was pretty important was that Michelle said she hadn’t seen the photo. It was part of an exhibition she walked past as least 4 times a day in the lobby of their building. The exhibition was in place for six weeks.

The photo is space pornography fetish etc all things Naomi said.

But Michele didn’t see it.

She’s meant to be in the arts.

Doesn’t read books
Doesn’t know films
Doesn’t look at art exhibitions even as she walks through them

From NW

KP yes
NC so you felt comfortable q-ing ML in the way you didn’t feel comfortable MD or members of the board
KP it wouldn’t be uncommon for me to follow up with a q - no a question of not being comfortable. In this occurance there needed to be some qs for clarification

[NC goes to 4 July 2024
NC you wrote this report. You say “I” throughout. - but this was LBD’s decision, wasn’t it
KP with advices from me
NC why didn’t LBD sign it

KP can’t recall
NC it was to give it the indication of independence
KP it was independent - they engaged an independent company - companies who don’t want to do be impartial don’t do that

NC would your view on that change if you knew that the person who wrote the report was the person who made the decision to start the investigation
[KP is confused. J asks her to break it down]

NC if LBD was one of the people who took the decision to investigate, it would make it impossible for you and her together to run a fair iv as to whether that was proper
KP my role is to look at the facts and the evidence and give my professional advice. If I had known LBD

was involved - there was never any pushback from the advice or dispute I gave her
NC you say you weren’t sure whose decision it was to instigate the iv - any theories
KP “I’m not going to give hypotheticals”

NC but you can’t iv whether the decision to make an iv was proper if you don’t know who decided
KP can’t comment. I was given the evidence which was a couple of pages of complaints, soc med complaints and the WS’s

NC but if someone says to their employer you made a decision to investigate me which was discriminatory because you wanted to punish me for my protected belief isn’t the first thing you do is ask the person made the decision and ask why

KP I asked MD and she showed me the complaints
NC so you think MD started the iv
KP yes
NC but you apply your mind to asking who started the iv

KP I was more interested in whether or not the decision was discriminatory
[back to the bundle - G procedure - timescales]
NC doesn’t say anything about an employee appeal, does it? Doesn’t say an appeal has to be made in 5 days

[KP is reading]
NC you ask her to formulate an appeal in 5 days
KP yes
NC that was never going to happen - you said this was a complex case - she was off sick with mental health

KP her response late and it was considered. It was standard practice to stop it “dragging on”.
NC it might be standard practice, but don’t you think you should have varied your practice in this case
KP accepts

[xe ends - SD asks for 10 minute break for re-ex as he is waiting on docs which will show KP’s comms with LBD]

Delighted for you! Happy to be your reference since you found those YouTube videos you Queen.

I am a soon to be DrProfessor - just wait a thread 🧵

From NW

I'm going to end this thread here and re-start another thread for the final witness of the day.

Thanks for reading - sorry about the disruption to communications. It was genuinely the internet's fault.

If you would like to receive a nightly newsletter report of what has happened today, please consider making a one-off donation here. Your subscriptions have allowed me to continue tweeting and reporting and I'm very grateful:

But Michele didn’t see it.
She’s meant to be in the arts.
Doesn’t read books
Doesn’t know films
Doesn’t look at art exhibitions even as she walks through them

I still can't believe you can be running a film festival and never have heard of a pretty famous film like Gaslight.

Totally this

Well done @weegielass I have refreshed the drinks trolley so we can celebrate with you!!

That's very true. But J was very snappy last week. So its a hard call. I wonder what MM's demeanor looks like today.

People's food choices are people's food choices and I envy anyone who can eat proper sliced white bread, but is that not seriously butter-deficient?

The scandalous lack of pudding.

NC fair point. I apologise - there should be in existence email corr between you and LBD
KP there should be, yes
NC and written advice from you
KP there were mainly Teams convos - brief
NC and do you normally record them
KP no
NC would you send an email
KP normally I would if it was unclear or there was a long conversation but in this instance LBD was happy with what I told her

Yet again, HR person not recording things properly.

From NW

This is Day 7 Session 2 of evidence given at Morrison v Belfast Film Festival. There were two witnesses giving evidence this afternoon. Keara Paterson on the left was in the last thread (I'll post it below) and Marie-Therese McGivern - co-chair of the BFF in the centre, follows

From NW

Here is Marie-Therese McGivern's evidence - a reminder nothing is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes" though both women spoke reasonably slowly so there are more than usual. Right - here goes. As-live tweeting!

[BFF co-chair Marie-Therese McGivern (MTM) is being sworn in and confirms her WS is correct]
[NC takes her to an email she wrote to her co chair LBD on 4 May 2023]

“I had planned to see Michelle before I got in touch with you again and i succeeded
yesterday afternoon. We had a really good chat and I feel in the loop now. We thought
through a lot of issues and made a number of plans. I want to share those with you and

then perhaps we can get a chat next week?”

and 5 May email to MD “I am happy to catch up with you when I return next week. Consultation with the Equality Commission is a good idea. Useful to also check our own docs in relation to where we might

stand in terms of objectives etc. would there be anything in our contract of employment around employees speaking etc at outside events?”

NC takes her to the contract: “Secondary Employment

From NW

You shall not without the express permission of management engage in any paid or unpaid activity which may directly conflict with the business interests of the employer or its members or which may interfere with your normal work. Employees are requested to notify the. employer of any secondary employment they

undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Working Time Regulations in relation to average working hours and daily rest.”

NC This is about secondary jobs or employment
MTM yes
NC it’s not about putting on a hi viz and helping out an event for a couple of hours
MTM I think I’m inclined to agree with you

NC you don’t need to worry about that at all

NC you say to LBD on 19 May: “Overall I think that we need to do a couple of things - firstly we need to review our contracts of employment just to check that they are in keeping with our value

framework and also we need to review and update our employment policies - the world
of HR moves quickly especially on certain issues”
NC so at that point it was just reviewing contracts

MTM yes
NC so no plans about doing anything else - anything more urgent or specific about C’s appearance at LWS
MTM at that stage I would have been concerned that whatever the impact of it had potentially not settled

From NW

yet, which was why I felt we need to talk to the EC and MD had I think had spoken to the legal team - we were in an information gathering situation
NC and in your last par you’re a little bit apologetic about how bureaucratic it sounds

MTM yes - my life in the public sector is quite bureaucratic and that we should seek expert advice and assistance
NC you’re apologetic because there’s a real desire forming in the BFF that something should be done

and the advice you were gettings was not much you can do about that “look to your policies”
MTM positive?
NC moving SM towards dismissal

MTM I don’t think we ever did - there may have been some convo as lets doing an iv, but my response was that we need to look at the paperwork. I was not apologising to LBD, I was just being a bit aware that it might not be the way LBD did things in her industry

[NC asks her to read MC’s emails and her response “On Friday night, in a bar, our staff member Sara Morrison raised the subject
to me of her speech at the trans rally. She said that she knew that Michele

had talked to me, that she is standing up for the rights of women, that she's
"not anti anything" and told me that it's about her son.
I told her that this was not the right time to discuss it - we were surrounded

by festival guests.
I found the whole thing troubling for several reasons. (1) There seemed to
be the suggestion that Michele of spreading false information; I told Sara

that I had heard reports of her speech from several sources including other
board members. (2) There was no hint of regret for, or doubt about, what
she did. As you'll know "I'm standing up for the rights of women" is the

From NW

argument used by conservatives and religious people in several countries,
and a new staple of the anti-LGBTQ anti-lslamic right. (3) If I remember
correctly, her child is a trans woman, so she is misgendering her here (I might

be wrong about that).
If Sara is saying this to me - a board member, vocal supporter of trans rights
and friend of Michele - I think it's possible to imagine that she is being less
careful elsewhere.

I therefore feel that we need to accelerate the process”]
NC so we see MC comparing SM’s position to “anti-LGBTQ anti-lslamic right.” - he’s taking this v seriously
MTM yes

NC what does he mean by “accelerate the process”
MTM wanted an investigation - he felt there was more noise, he was looking for “let’s get this sorted” and where I come from you don’t sort these in 5 mins anyway

NC doesn’t he make it clear what kind of rememdy he has in mind where he says :”We can't have an inclusion/diversity officer who, many
weeks after making such an ill-advised speech, is still standing by her actions

completely.”
MTM you could interpret that in many ways - “it doesn’t speak to what remedy he wants… I think he wants to put some distance between the inclusion officer and people making complaints…. He was

worried that interaction might cause even more issues” MC was a “huge huge fan of SM and spoke very lovingly of her on a regular basis… very complimentary”
NC “isn’t it pretty obvious what he’s saying he’s saying she needs to be dismissed, that’s where we need

to get to”
MTM “that isn’t my reading of it”
NC LBD replies: “I agree that this situation with Sara grows rather more than less
concerning.

We can’t leave things as they are. Michele/MT let’s have a chat tomorrow?”
NC growing sense of urgent action needing to be taken
MTM action did need to be taken - I would judge SM’s actions in that bar to be “ill judged and

inappropriate” at an after work event
NC LBD says - “let’s have a chat tomorrow” - did you have that chat?
MTM “i have no memory of having a chat… I may have “spoken on the phone to Michele” but I have no

memory of speaking to LBD. LBD was living in London at the time and she was preparing to come home. “I do not have the memory of a phone call [with LBD]”
NC MD recalled today that convo took place - she said it was a phone call

Irish 'notions' = pretentiousness as in 'Yer wan and her notions'.

Can also be used adjectivally e.g.hand-cut potato crisps with truffle oil and Mediterranean sea salt are 'notions Taytos'.

I think MD was using it to mean a not-fully -formed idea. But I wouldn't put 'notions' past her....

From NW

MTM “I can’t remember the content of it” NC LBD and now MD recall it. MD can’t remember anything about it and you’re not sure it happened at all. NC that is the moment LBD says we’ve got a problem and we need to make a plan and that was the

conversation when you made the plan MTM I can’t remember there was a flowing process at the time. I knew we need an investigation. That would be the extent of our plan

NC plan was let’s find a plan to get SM to email LGBTQ community and start a disc process on the inevitable kickback MTM no recollection of that plan

NC and that’s why you’re so “vague” about that meeting because that’s when you cooked up the plan to “poke up the hornet’s nest against her” MTM no NC takes her to her statement - this is chron order?

MTM yes it’s a chron of the process NC so in par 4 you meet with MD on 18 May, an email on 19 May and then the next thing is the email you got from MD on 4 July - so you skip over the email and chat on 27 and 28 June.

MTM they’re in the bundle - I didn’t respond to MC’s email - there’s no reason to have it in the chron NC don’t you think you should at least have said that LBD made this suggestion, but it didn’t happen because.

MTM “possibly - but this was LBD’s suggestion, it wasn’t my suggestion” NC goes to email from MD at 10.59am on 4 July copying her email to you “Hi Marie-Therese and Louise Yesterday we sent this email to all L

list and we jointly wrote this email. Sara was concerned about sending it from her email address,
because of an issue she had with Alliance forChoice-ltoldheritwasherjobasinclusion officer that
it should come from her, but if it would help I would send it from my email address and cc her in.”

NC you’re a vol board member. YOu don’t get involved in ops matters
MTM correct
NC is it usual for your CEO to tell you she’d sent an email?

MTM depends on the context - she may have thought it was important
NC were you surprised
MTM no I interpreted it as MD showing she was trying to “find a way through” the situation.

NC wasn’t this MD reporting back to you and LBD on how the plan that you had formulated on 28 June was shaping up?
MTM “if you’re going back to the plan you’ve charactersied for me no that’s no the way I interpret it as

we hadn’t had that plan”
NC takes MTM to more of MD email’s: “We have had a few positive emails back. And we have had 2 others which I will forward to you

separately. We have also had some tweets from Queerspace - which I will send to you FYI.” - why is she reporting all this to you in such “granular detail” - bit odd isn’t it?
MTM no there was a growing concern. The truth is, this issue wasn’t going away.

NC this is MD reporting back to you on the plan and showing you what’s come back
MTM “I reject the idea of your concept that we had some sort of plan”
NC takes MTM to R’s grounds of resistance - re engaging think people (TP) on 5 July

MTM yes
NC the iv had to have been commenced on the basis of info the R had in its hands at the time it made the decision - you can’t make decisions on info you don’t have

MTM you can and quite often do, especially if the decision is to iv to find out what you don’t know
NC the iv was made on the basis of what you already knew
MTM - yes complaints were arriving

NC but what can’t have influenced the decision was complaints received on 6,7,8,9 July
MTM yes
NC were you party to the decision to iv
MTM not the dec to bring TP in, but I supported the iv

NC so when was that decision made/
MTM I guess from my point of view as early as 18 May I was supporting an iv, because I say in my email to LBD that we should bring in “expert help”. My view was that we needed to proceed to an iv

NC on 19 May email…
MTM we should get these pieces of work carried out…
NC this is about HR and contracts - theres nothing about an investigation

MTM it’s implicit I am suggesting the matter does not have to be investigated
NC I put it to you again the dec was made on 28 June
MTM I can’t recall that meeting. I do know TP were brought in on 5 July

Thanks
@SexRealistic What was pretty important was that Michelle said she hadn’t seen the photo..she walked past as least 4 times a day in the lobby of their building... for six weeks.

Hadn't realised that. So she was probably lying then.

From NW

NC so by the time the decision was made on 5 July that was the material on which the iv could be based.
MTM no it was cumulative - this was the “tipping point” when we realised “it’s not going away”.
NC so the decision to iv was made earlier

MTM you keep saying dec - it’s a process - where I come from the SOP is to have an investigation
NC do you see the problem at some point someone decided to start an iv - so far no one has been able to tell the tribunal who why or how this happened - can you help at all?

MTM no - “cumulatively… there were growing numbers of complaints and it was always - in my view - a good idea to have an iv. I was always supportive of the concept… it had always been my that the way through this was to get have an iv”
NC yes but someone had to do it

MTM that was the CEO
NC so it was her decision alone or was she helped to do that
MTM she was supported by me - she would have known she was supportive. so was MC and other

board members had suggested that as well “I don’t think she was pushing against a closed door”
NC and you seem to be painting a picture of a consensus forming and being acted on without anyone making the actual decision....

... Someone has to say - this is what we’re going to do and you do it.
MTM people had been talking since April
NC the problem you had the reasons this dec took so long to coalesce was that until those complaints

had been generated all you had was SM exercising her right to free speech and you needed something extra to discpline her
MTM the issue was not to discipline her, nor the fact she exercised her right to her political opinions - “it

was that it generated “blow back” for the organisation. We needed to iv - no one was talking about discipline… the main conversation I was having was about damage limitation to the festival. the tone of these emails is quite cross…

we are a small organisation which is dependent on funders and there’s no doubt the incident caused blow back which was not positive for the organisation”
NC takes her to a complaint email to MD from someone called Amie Martin. a mental health worker

writing to MD to tell her about one of her patients “Hello Michele.
Hope your keeping well?? I wanted to pass on a statement that one of our service users has asked me to send on to you based on his experience.

He has asked that you do not show it to Sara , nor let her know that he has sent this or keep it anon as possible as she has been known to chase up some people and he does not want any contact with her at all.

He has said that its okay to show to board but to just keep it between yourselves for now and not with Sara or online as he understandably was a bit shaken with the experience and does not want to be harassed for doing this or for it to effect his

relationship with the festival as he is an avid fan of the festival and will attend screenings regularly as well submit. If you need to have a chat about this or need me for anything let me know as we were
supporting him through this . Kind Regards, Amie Martin

MTM she refers to service users - I wouldn’t know that it’s about mental health
NC it comes from LGBTMH - I’m guessing MH stands for mental health
MTM you might be right

NC you said in your WS that this email was one of the reasons behind engaging TP on 5 July but it was sent on 7 July so that’s impossible, isn’t it
MTM it was about the cumulative complaints

NC but your email says this email was part of the decision making process
MTM it wasn’t intended to be misleading - I included this email - I was “genuinely shocked” as I was involved with the film school. “If the allegations are true I was shocked that a young film

film maker was being treated in this way at one of our events.” “But what’s clear is that’s his complaint. It’s an allegation. The purpose of an iv is to try and draw some light” that’s why I’m an advocate of ivs

NC but this was not the what started the iv
MTM accepts
NC but if it’s true it’s very serious
MTM shocking

NC if true we’d be pretty clearly in gross misconduct territory
MTM not familiar with GM but I would agree it probably is

NC so an iv is being planned - and it’s fair to all to conduct an iv
MTM absolutely
NC was this complaint iv’d

MTM it would have been had the iv happened. There can’t be a special one. There are a lot of complaints
NC SM was still at work on 7 July - would this be a suspension following an allegation like this
MTM it would be better to bundle them together

@weegielass fantastic news- well done.

Delurking to say a huge thank you to all the posts and commentary on these threads. 👌