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.

More on Clare ‘data leak’ Moirarty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/03/backlash-citizens-advice-tells-staff-wear-gender-pronoun-badges/

Look at all that resource, people, time, networks.

I wonder how much time is spent on this stuff rather than delivery

That’s a hideous website to use on a phone, blimey!

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

FFS no one is denying ST 's existence.

It's become another one of the TRA totally mis/over used words

PachacutisBadAuntie · Today 08:46

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.

Yes, me too.

From TT:

HH: BHD needs swift action?
SM: And effective
HH: And particularly necessary to prevent BHD continuing?
SM: I think aim is to do as quickly and fairly and effectively as poss

HH: In this case, C is saying, harassment is continuing, already done 1 grv?
SM: Yes

HH: You say you took some specific advice from HR - same convo as we've discussed or another time?
SM: Can't recall - I think diff, re policies.

HH: p1448 this is 9/8/23 Chris Brown (HR) contacts you, you ask to discuss and then did on 10/8. CB role was to coordinate all CS requests?
SM: I don't know

HH: Had you seen grv, and the previous one, at this point?
SM: May have - probably had - I think yes had been sent some docs yes

HH: Did you discuss grv itself with CB? Its content?
SM: I think it was more about process, esp the IX manager - to get an investigation sorted?
HH: You'd already discussed that with Jackie.
SM: No, that had been about my availablity etc

HH: Did you talk to CB about the content? On 9-10/8?
SM: Can't remember
HH: No notes of that mtg?
SM: No

HH: Back to the dispute resolution policy - paras 71-72 clear that all stages must have written record. That's 2 things you didn't take notes?
SM: I would argue that process didn't start until I met with ST to agree scope.

That league table is extraordinary, do they have similar for other protected characteristics? Disability for example? I suspect I know the answer..

I suspect Stephen Moore's evidence ( just started) is going to be critical in determining the judgment.

SM was very senior in role, but has now retired.

I am slightly concerned about SM not taking notes.

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.

So a previous complaint in 2023 - from a TRA - broadly against SEEN, was upheld.

He says he didn't take notes before the process started, e.g. the meeting where he discussed whether or not he would do the job, time contsraints etc.
Once he started doing the reviews, notes were taken, and typed copies made available to the trib.

He sounds like a stickler, and the judge may appreciate that

From TT:

J: Any notes at all?
SM: Yes I would have written notes in a notebook
HH: Did you give those rough notes to HR?
SM: no

HH: You didn't contact ST until 8/9/23 and you met the next week.
HH: p1553 [I think]
HH: This is your email to ST 29/9 attaching terms of reference?
SM: yes

HH: Grv 19/6, terms not finalised until 3 months later?
SM: yes
HH: p2021, the policy. Para37 says that decision maker shd actively monitor, to have things as quick as poss. If not sorted in 30 days, review inc by HR. You didn't review?
SM: Not formally no.

SM: Was v aware of the time taken, and that in September we were looking for IX manager

J: Do you know if there was a progress review? By you or HR?
SM: We were constantly reviewing - I would say weekly?
J: Under terms of para 37?
SM: Not in the formal sense no

HH: Is it fair to say that at end Sept, DEFRA had had a number of complaints from trans staff inc the one you had dealt with in the spring?
SM: That was not DEFRA.

HH: You were aware of a complaint similar to ST's. Aware of probs with use of Yammer.
SM: I don't really use it but yes aware.
HH: Aware of lots of complaints re GC content?
SM: I don't know. Was not put in front of me, no.

HH: I mean your general knowledge of this being a hot topic across DEFRA & agencies?
SM: I knew there was discussion in EA about how to handle, but, wd not say "hot topic" or lots of complaints. Our hot topics were things like flooding.

HH: Isn't reality that expression of GC beliefs and SEEN existence was now so toxic in DEFRA group that HR didn't know how to handle it at all?
SM: Wouldn't say that - and I am not part of DEFRA core, I'm EA

HH: With your experience - there is no good reason why you would tolerate such a delay?
SM: Many cases take weeks, months - our aim is to be able to do thoroughly and well. If it takes 6 months, a years, well they are what they are.

HH: I mean your general knowledge of this being a hot topic across DEFRA & agencies?

SM: I knew there was discussion in EA about how to handle, but, wd not say "hot topic" or lots of complaints. Our hot topics were things like flooding.

Translation: Some of us had our minds on the real job.

Our hot topics were things like flooding. 😁

So, the previous complaint was upheld because the process itself ( of determining what was admissable) was not functioning as it should - rather than with the content of posts.

Yes, thank goodness!

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 is trying to hype up the emotions around SEEN, which of course is what ST relies on - that it was all so awful that he had to go off sick.

SM is putting it in perspective - other things are just as awful and maybe, just maybe even more awful than a GC opinion in the workplace.
Like flooding.

Another one who says he didnt use Yammer.

Don’t forget the claimant was off sick at this point. There’s a fine line between progressing a grievance and overloading an off-sick employee.

I've only skimmed this morning's TT, but my main takeaway is that employees like Tempest are a massive liability in any organisation - grievance-addled, looking for offence, complaining about every aspect of how case is managed - just a massive drain on everyone's time and energy, with no benefit to the organisation.

From TT:

HH: 29/9 ToR to ST, and also to CB?
SM: I can't recall
HH: p1164, email from CB to ST 4/10 - 5 days later - we can see both have ToR. CB now emails ST to say grievance wd now be a collective one.
SM: I see that yes

HH: This is not offering ST collective option, it says decision already made.
SM: Yes I see that
HH: Who decided?
SM: Don't know
HH: Did you ask
SM: No

J: Did you know it was happening?
SM: I knew it was being considered
J: Who told you?
SM: Probably CB but I can't be certain.

HH: You say you think CB told you there cd be delay if collective of these and others, how many others?
SM: Don't know
HH: No record?
SM: Not beyond my notebook no.

SM: And you can see that I found out decision from ST, here.

HH: p1107
HH: Email from CB to you 17/8 cc Jackie - introduction to say ST happy to be contacted by you. Last para - it's clear that every grievance needs to be considered individually?

SM: Yes
HH: Then 4/10 you are told collectively. Given delay already, why didn't you challenge decision?
SM: I assumed that the collective route was aiming at speeding things up, for everyone.

HH: Surely dealing with multiple will take more time?
SM: I beg to differ.
HH: From DEFRA perspective, if there are multiple separate ones there is possibility of inconsistent results. Is that why collective? To control process?
SM: I don't know reqason

HH: You didn't ask?
SM: My understanding was that it was about resources of handling things, ppl like me.
HH: DEFRA were making all the key decisions weren't they?
SM: No up to this point I'd made all the decisions

SM wants to highlight the importance of Process over Content. HH wants him to only consider the Complainant 's persepective.