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.

God forbid a high up in the EA might put the purpose of his work at the top of his to do list. He should have let whole villages flood and dealt with the really important stuff like STs grievance and why the canteen doesn't have goats milk.

Agreed - but the process had better be flawless...

Especially as they were already very busy being offended about about things that might cause them offence fed to them by 'allies'

Most people at director level simply don’t have time to read yet another comms channel as well as email, WhatsApp, Teams messaging etc. Yammer was a social thing, not a business-critical info channel.

Precisely. The comment about flooding was rather pointed.

All about the activism, the internal dramas and endless offense/grievance, everything else in the workplace comes a very distant second.

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 is effectively revealing that TRAS were making workplaces so toxic that HR and equality advisors were having a hard time knowing how to handle their balance of responsibilities.

@Talisker I approve of people doing their job and not wasting time on Yammer.

From TT:

HH: IX started end Oct, took 3 months - you have report 9/2 and your did output letter 24/4/2024?
SM:Yes

HH: Ten months effectively, do you accept the delay caused ST considerab1le distress?
SM: Yes can accept that

J: Did C complain to you about the delays?
SM: Wouldn't say so, no. When we discussed, we seemed to agree that important to get it right. ST not happy re delay, but accepted I felt.

J: Did she complain about delay, if so when?
SM: We would have to look through interview records to know.

HH: ST mental health affected, went off sick?
J: We need to focus on what this witness said and did, not on how C might have been feeling, can we focus please?

HH: Did C tell you off on sick leave July-Dec?
SM: I don't think so, to start with
HH: Were you told why?
SM: No
J: Did you ask?
SM: No

HH: Were you told, mental health?
SM: Can't recall

HH: I suggest you must have been aware of impact on ST mental health?
SM: Because?
HH: Wd not have escaped your notice C in distress?
AL: I suggest that should be series of Qs

HH: Did C tell you distressed?
SM: Yes
HH: Obvs from grv?
SM: Yes
HH: Long drawn out process distressing?
SM: Already said, yes C was distressed.

It does seem like it all took a long time, but I have a little suspicion, can't think why, that had it been concluded swiftly, the complaint would be that there was a predetermined outcome, that ST's distress wasn't properly considered etc. Ultimately ST is unhappy about the grievance not being upheld, not how long it took to not uphold the grievance.

I don’t believe in fairies 🧚‍♀️

Easy to wonder why it wasn't recognised that this whole Yammer + thing was a really bad idea in many ways.

J: We need to focus on what this witness said and did, not on how C might have been feeling, can we focus please?

( It's not all about the feelz, it is about the process and whether it was implemented with reason)

If I worked there as a manager I'd avoid stuff like Yammer like the plague. I'd like to think I'd be busy enough without the risk of seeing something I shouldn't ignore and burden myself with more shit to deal with, or when it eventually hits the fan get carpeted for ignoring it.

From TT:

HH: p985 [I think]
HH: ST email 19/6/23 to HR & line manager. Says, DEFRA hadn't done all the recs from previous grv, DEFRA still allowing harassment. Substance of complaint p987.

HH: the italics is quote from Janet Hughes grv appeal conclusions, ST grv now is about failure to implement those?
SM: yes

HH: p988 ST makes clear that offensive comments still coming up on Yammer
SM: Yes
HH: Specifically posts from 3/5, and re lanyards
SM: yes

HH: p989 complains re Matt Walsh post
SM: Yes
HH: And re another Yammer post 15/6.
HH: And p990 ST sets out desired outcome - JH recs to be implemented in full.

ST seemed to have believed he could/should direct the final outcome of the investigation. No amount of referring to equalities and other protected characteristics is going to cut it.

So his grievance is that his grievance wasn’t successful? Do we know what all the recommendations were in the first grievance? Hasn’t he already been advised that at least one of the recommendations put the employer on the wrong side of the law?

Yes indeed. No investigation necessary, no conclusions to be drawn, just do exactly as I say.

I've seen the recommendations somewhere. Possibly in his, ST's, WS.

I suspect the various TRA-aligned complainants were attempting to bog. down the system with grievances about SEEN iot ensure that management got so pissed off that they closed down DEFRA SEEN. They were not interested in speedy resolution.

I can't help thinking that the folx like Tinkerbell would be a lot happier and balanced if they spent less time foraging for grievances and catastrophising, it's like doing CBT in reverse.

From earlier in the x exam:

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).

So 'specialist training' on trans complaints? I wonder who did that and what the content of that was.

Pages 16, 17, and 18 of ST's WS indeed. Notable is also that JH's recommendations sprang forth from ST's appealing the first grievance (decided on by Parry)

ETA: the WS doesn't elaborate on "several other recommendations related to matters of oversight and governance".

This is all transference of their distress.

I am now a lady but still look like a hulking man.

I am at work and people think I am a man. I can use a permissive culture to punish theses people.

Oh I haven’t been able to smash them as hard as I like. Here comes Emma with her spies. Let’s run a grievance.

I dont think anyone involved in this process has yet realised their actions are illegal so they havent told Tinkerbell that.

What I keep wondering is how the hell this got to be treated at Director level in the first place. If anyone has said that I've missed it.