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.

From TT:

HH - agree it's complicated and that you haven't had specific training relating to gender reass. No examples of independent steps you took relating to this case
DH I made sure I was aware of defra's policies and procedures

HH - in terms of gender reass?
DH no I did not
HH so all of the basis of your decision didn't come from you it came from HR didn't it?
I''ll just rephrase that

In terms of going into this process your knowledge about the legal principles didn't come from your research you relied on HR
DH I was relying above all on my own judgement on whether I saw evidence of harrassment. My job to review decision by Mr Moore

HH - you were relying on your own judgement
DH - I was reviewing Mr Moore's decision

that probably is the work! 🙄

HH - you were relying on your own judgement
DH - I was reviewing Mr Moore's decision

Yes, I was relying on my own judgement to review Mr Moore's decision .... sorry what was the question again?

From TT:

DH - my own judgement on the decision Mr Moore made
J - not relying on own judgement but Mr Moore's
DH yes
HH - whether yours of Mr Moore, you needed understanding of what harassment meant in term of EA

DH I'm not saying I got any particular advice from HR
J did you get any advice from HR?
DH I was in touch with HR case mgr, I don't think they gave specific advice on harassment. Not advice as such but available to all of us

HH - to be clear, you didn't delve any further than internal policies. You didn't delve into nuances of gender reass harassment
DH - that's correct
HH - para 6 of witness statement

Yes, many thanks to all the c &p-ers. This case is utterly gobsmacking. How did (presumably) reasonably well-educated, intelligent people end up so brainwashed?

ED yes sex is bimodal not binary
There is not reason to say sex is binary in the workplace

How important is this argument to the case? As far as I understand the judge has asked NC not to get into the weeds of talking about opposing beliefs, but the idea that there is 'no reason to say sex is binary in the workplace' seems central to ED's argument.

I feel I should mention there is a typo (probably AI generated) on the lanyard ... I'm sure you will make sure everything is correct if physical versions are created.

I think DH got this gig - reviewing a previous decision - as what we call in Dublin, a 'nixxer', work done outside your normal duties.
I'm guessing that managers at his level sometimes have to do one-offs like that.
But he probably kept the water flowing while he did the review😄
[He's in Water Delivery]

HH - to be clear, you didn't delve any further than internal policies. You didn't delve into nuances of gender reass harassment
DH - that's correct

No doubt he assumed the organisations internal policies were checked by the legal department prior to being issued so why would he look further?

From TT:

HH - you talk about documents in front of you for your decision, we can see you talk about email Mr Moore sent to you on 7 May 24, can we go to bundle ref 1862.

HH - we can see the email from the email from him to you, can a bullet point list of docs he sent to you, see his decision on 2nd grievance, copy of invest report, 2 emails to Terms of Ref and we can see an email from Jackie HB, and sorry to go back and forth

that is Jackie HB? Ref 1088?

HH - we can see email from Jackie HB who is in HR is that right? Sending you an attachment that includes 2nd grievance.
DH appeal decision attached
HH - next bullet point we can see he also sent you a couple of other emails around timings

HH also 1161 please.
J - questions reason for HH's references here

HH we know at 1862 he sends you a list of docs, and you also say that you had the outcome letter for 1st grievance. But one doc you didn't have was the C's first grievance.
Going back to your WS, para 7, you said that in your experience it is important to follow correct process

There does seem to be a remarkable amount of paid time spent on galloping personal hobby horses and vendettas around.

It's not just any old harassment though, it's 'gender reass harassment'. An extra special special harassment for extra special special people.

From TT:

HH - ref 2010. The guidance for appeal mgrs as part of that - look at 2027 please.

HH can see in my copy of this. There's guidance for appeals managers before meetings. You need to check that you have all of the relevant documentation and understand grounds for appeal. You understood that the C was appealing the first appeal.
DH that was part of appeal yes

HH and to understand that, the C first grievance was highly relevant
DH didn't feel so
HH you didn't choose to seek it out
DH I did not

HH - you had a copy of Terms of Ref, and you did have 2nd grievance - at 985 please.

I think this questioning is suggesting that DH didn't do a very thorough review - which was ED's complaint, that it [or the 1st one? or both?] wasn't 'rigorous', with inadequate training and missing docs, e.g the text of the 1st grievance.

Yes that’s the evidence it’s AI 😂😂😂

Yes on teams attendees can see who attended, what time they joined and what time they left.

The issue in this case is were those details re a SEEN meeting leaked to ED via a director generals office and if so for what purpose

For example:
HH and to understand that, the C first grievance was highly relevant
DH didn't feel so
HH you didn't choose to seek it out
DH I did not

Given that this relates to the Rural Payments Agency, is it acceptable to talk about the impact of sex on farm animals, e.g. cows?

From TT:

HH - 985 email to JM where she attaches dispute res form. At 987 we can see substance of appeal and details of dispute. JH central rec was that Defra shouldn't provide open platform for GC views
DH that was one of recs yes

(missed - sound poor)

HH - please familiarise yourself with terms of ref again, para 1-6 I am going to ask you about.

HH - it's clear that the decision of HR director after first outcome was central issue to second grievance.
DH Yes
HH go back to dispute resolution policy.

Well it seems that’s all they seem to be doing, monitoring each other, joining networks, sending memos complaining ….. No wonder it takes ages to get driving licences, passports, property registered, permits …

From TT:

HH - not going to all sections, going to put general propositions to you. (outlines usual griev proc)
DH - sounds right
HH - if we go to para 48 of Dispute Res Policy please.

HH in terms of process in this case, grounds can include procedural errors and or new evidence, and if we go to para 66 page 2026, in exceptional cases about process conduct a full re-hearing could be appropriate. in this case the C was complaining about the failure to implement

C was complaining JH was overridden by HR
DH - that's one way of seeing it
HH anywhere in policies and procedures where HR can override process?
DH two things, one is if i was conducting an appeal and there is a recommendation, then it is just that

DH wasn't possible to implement that recommendation given balance.
As appeal manager I am looking at the process of the grievance itself and I didn't see anything wrong other than the length of time it took

Maybe it was all those bulls identifying as cows meaning that farmers all over the country were going bust due to cessation of cow reproduction and milk production.

Would a trans cow be a bull? Maybe it would be a womanly bull….

Me too.

Asking about training but all the training misrepresented the law anyway.