Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.
I will also note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

PachacutisBadAuntie · Today 20:08

Keep in mind as well there will be many many more following these threads than are posting.

Yes, when you look at acknowledgements of posts and see usernames which never appear here, you think there must be more than them reading and nodding, yet not wanting exposure.

In fairness, employees in the CS also pay taxes, so also fund the nonsense (though they do get a decent pension out of it). And it must be utterly enraging for those who go into it with a genuine spirit of public service to find their time and energy wasted on crap like this.

You do realise that people who work in the public sector also take out mortgages, raise children, pay into pensions and pay taxes that fund this utter bollocks?

I agree, and I admit that the headline here probably isn’t representative of most CS employees. But even so. It’s taking the piss out of the rest of us. Just so many grifters wasting taxpayer’s money, all of us..

77,183 seeds have been planted for Elspeth, room for some more. I wonder if anyone will mention Claire Moriarty's daughter who in 2021 after 5 years got a GRC saying she is male.

Too late to edit. If anyone can find the blogs she wrote about her child I'd be interested to read them.

Not just exposure, but when I can catch up I am so far behind, hours and hundreds of posts, that I generally use reactions rather than try and join in the conversation. But it's great reading all the tribunal action (thanks TT and all the c&p'ers!) mixed in with the commentary on here.
It's a good thing I'm not interested in football, I'd never get anything done...

Thank you @Justabaker and all at TT. Your work is invaluable. 💪💪💪

I can start the c&p off today, at least, but I probably won't be on top of it as much as last week which means it may come in bigger chunks than usual. If that bothers anyone feel free to take over (please @ me so that I know you're doing so).

From TT:

^Good morning. Today we will be continuing our reporting from the employment tribunal case brought by Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency. t.co/lwQuMxnM2w^

This is the start of the third week of this hearing. Our Substack page has our reporting of all the previous days' evidence.

^t.co/KGgDXHIwk8^

Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene.

We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs.
Please consider subscribing.

A reminder that our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith.

We expect the hearing to begin at 10:00am, and for Steve Moore (at the time of events Director of Major Projects and Programme Delivery Environment at DEFRA) to begin giving evidence.

^A full list of abbreviations is on our Substack page t.co/KGgDXHIwk8^

The ones likely to be used this morning are:

J - Employment Judge S.D. Robertson
P - one or other of the two lay panel members

ST/C - Samantha Tempest, claimant
HH - Helen Hogben KC, barrister for claimant

DEFRA/R1 - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, first respondent

RPA/R2 - Rural Payments Agency, second respondent

Rs - First and second respondents

AL - Alexander Line, Respondents' Barrister

SEEN - Sex Equality and Equity Network - Civil Service
SEEN-DEFRA - the DEFRA branch of SEEN
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for SEEN as intervenor

CS: Civil Service

IX: Investigation
Grv: Grievance
(Mr Moore was the decision maker in C's second grievance process)

WS: Witness Statement

Sooooo. What fuckery do we have in store today wimms?

I propose a grading sytsm based on lorryloads of popcorn, or multiples of Tunnock goods of choice.

10 lorryloads of popcorn = total batshit level reached.
If it goes up to 11 protective clothing may need to be donned.

Thank you fanOfBen for the c&ping in whatever format is best for you today
💐
Here is TT on Nitter:
Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) | nitter.poast.org

@fanOfBen I can C&P this afternoons sessions if that helps. I'm out for most of the morning.

Thank you copy and pasters 💐

Thank you to all the C&P team.

From TT:

[Hearing will begin shortly]

J: Good morning everyone. We have Mr Moore today.
[SM affirms to tell truth etc]
[AL takes SM through swearing to his WS]

HH: [begins cross-examination]
HH: Will be focussing on C second grievance. Your WS para 2 you describe your experience at Environment Agency, many years, v senior, you're now retired?
SM: Yes April 2025

HH: You say you'd done several grievances, disciplinaries etc. You worked for EA and at para 7 you say, familiar with EA procedures etc but sought DEFRA HR support for DEFRA ones? Was it re process or re substance of grv?

SM: Firstly re grv itself - so I knew if I had time to take it on - and then on policies etc. Which I found similar / identical.

HH: You say broadly similar, do you agree that there are common ingredients in all orgs to a fair grv?
SM: Yes
HH: Transparency etc?
SM: Yes

HH: Investigate facts, decide any action, inform employee?
SM: yes
HH: Keeping accurate records?
SM: of key elements
HH: And no unreasonable delay?
SM: Yes, but with caveat of doing a fair job.

HH: There are additional ingredients but main issue was failure to implement Janet Hughes' recommendations?
SM: Yes

HH: Before this grv -
J: I am not sure SM's prior experience will help us much. We are tight on time.
HH: I will short cut. Did you have any experience before on complaints re Gender Reassignment harassment?

SM: General bullying and harassment cases, and a few - not identical but similar to this. And had specialist advice / training here (which is legal privileged).

HH: Did that previous grievance concern SEEN?
SM: To an extent.
HH: Complaint about their existence?
SM: I can't remember whether that was specifically part of it.

From TT:

HH: Allegations of discriminatory posts by SEEN / members?
SM: Can't recall that level of detail?
HH: Re postings on Yammer etc?
SM: About conflicting views being expressed on open platform.

J: Previous case similar how?
SM: trans member of staff, issues of data protection and use of Yammer, but I don't have it all in front of me and can't recall all details.
HH: before ST grv?
SM: yes
HH: How long?
SM: poss spring 2023? Wd need to check

HH: Outcome?
SM: upheld that one.

HH: So, related issues data protection & use of Yammer - was previous one about posting GC beliefs?
SM: It was more general than that I think - whether any member of staff could post views on open platform and should that be the way we worked.

SM: I think there were plans to improve the situation but I think I upheld the grv because those were not being implemented effectively

HH: So you have broad understanding of issues. For ST - issue of dealing with grvs without unreasonable delay. ST submitted 19/6. You weren't appointed until end July?

SM: I wasn't appointed then, was approached - I think it had been mentioned to me early, but formal contact by DEFRA HR then to see if I could take it on. 28th July I think

From TT:

HH: And not finalised for another month or so?
SM: I had to work out whether I had time to take it on, I think DEFRA HR jumped gun and told ST I had been appointed late July, but I was then on leave in August so I asked that ST be informed I would start September after leave.

HH: Most grievances are done and dusted in that time
SM: Far from it - complex cases take sometimes months. Esp if at director level - ppl don't have much spare time. They genuinely take a long time.

HH: So want to discuss how long yr appointment took. There are 20,000 odd employees - it took much too long to appoint investigator.
J: What period?
HH: six weeks about

HH: No attempt to find alternative investigator?
SM: I wouldn't know. DEFRA HR.
HH: Who appointed you?
SM: Wd have to look at emails - was it Jackie?

HH: You had a chat with her 28/7?
SM: Yes

HH: p1088-9
HH: email to you from Jackie - appears you had a meeting with her that day?
SM: a discussion
HH: last para - says "meeting"?
SM: We will have had one, for me to evaluate scale of poss involvement, time etc

HH: At this point you had Janet Hughes' grv outcome?
SM: Don't remember
HH: You took no notes of the meeting?
SM: At this stage it's speculative, do I have capacity, may have scribbled some notes but not involved yet, hadn't agreed to do it.

HH: There are additional ingredients but main issue was failure to implement Janet Hughes' recommendations?
SM: Yes

Was JH the one who recommended banning SEEN? I don't recall seeing her on the witness list.
Do I remember correctly that all Defra staff are called as witnesses by Defra, and the only claimant witness was ED, and the only intervenor witness is EDW?

She’s a number 2 top ally

https://www.civilservice.lgbt/impact-index/

From TT:

HH: This is a complex case.
SM: As I found out
HH: And we don't have any notes of your decision making process?
SM: I don't have copies - still at EA maybe? I don't know.
HH: Did you make notes?
SM: I tend to yes
HH: Did you?
SM: Can't remember I'm afraid

HH: Re transparency - even more important in such a case as this?
SM: I don't think so re an initial conversation with HR, no, Other stages yes - mtgs with C, outcome

HH: We have typed copies, not your handwritten ones?
SM: yes

HH: p[missed]
HH: This is the resolution policy you used? In force at the time?
SM: Yes
HH: p2012 - policy is to help ppl carry out duties with dignity?
SM: Yes

HH: And C not able to do that, bcs SEEN posting content that denied existence
SM: Yes understood that

HH: p2015-6 - policy section re BHD (bullying harassment discrimination) para 16 - reinforces need for speed?
SM: That's 17? [discussion of which policy para is which]

HH: Did that previous grievance concern SEEN?
HH: Allegations of discriminatory posts by SEEN / members?
SM: Can't recall that level of detail?
HH: Re postings on Yammer etc?
SM: About conflicting views being expressed on open platform.

I'm sure the Claimant has full knowledge of this case, and as upheld will be trying to get it into evidence

J: Previous case similar how?
SM: trans member of staff, issues of data protection and use of Yammer, but I don't have it all in front of me and can't recall all details.

As in, Defra staff leaking SEEN data to the trans complainant/their allies? 🤨
In a complaint that was upheld?

Trans child - DEFRA - a:gender - ally

BINGO

the Claimant's case has been presented, though