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.

Yes - just catching up on the morning so happy to C&P from 2.00pm

Hopefully this point can be covered in cross examination or by Elspeth.

HH kept referring to it as a ten-month delay, which seems to be over-egging the situation rather unless she thinks grievances and appeals should be dealt with overnight.

This is what the whole lanyard exchange put me in mind of. (Image attached)

😂
Brilliant. Hilarious. And terrifyingly close to the actuality😱

Thanks for all the updates - thank goodness for that MOJ lawyer that provided the redacted advice. Seems like she put a major spoke on ST’s wheels where everyone else was sad that he was distressed

The problem is that the rules said something should happen within 5 days - I think SM said that it was just some kind of summary/acknowledgement was due in 5 days, a whole ruling in 5 days would be daft.

But if ST should have got something that the rules promised within 5 days, and did not get it within 5 days, then they missed their own deadline.

They need to revise it so it no longer commits to 5 days as a deadline for anything, but it if did at the time of this grievance, well... that's a valid complaint I think.

I do not work for DEFRA, so I suppose it's possible Viva Engage has been set up differently there, but going off my experience of how Viva Engage is set up by my own employer, I would say he'd have had to seek it out.

It's even been specified that the SEEN group was on private by SM's testimony, which is exactly what one would expect.

ST's problem is not that he was being forced to encounter SEEN content on Viva Engage, because he wasn't. His problem was his knowledge that not all people in the world agree with TWAW and his constant rumination on whether disobedient gender-critical people might be talking to other gender-critical people instead of cowering in solitary corners, terrified of being found out to be gender-critical.

I am most tickled that apparently occupational health recommended that Viva Engage be shut down for everyone. Why not simply remove the application from ST's own devices (laptop and phone) instead? Half the people I work with haven't even installed Viva Engage at all!

Yes, I wonder how it compares with how long other grievance procedures have lasted?

Did the grievance take unreasonably long - maybe yes, I don't know.

But was this due to anti-trans discrimination, or is that just how long these things take?

From TT:

Good afternoon. Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency is expected continue this afternoon, not before 2 pm. Background, link to our Substack, previous reporting, abbreviations are in tweet thread below.

From TT:

HH, barrister for claimant, will continue cross examination of Steve Moore, the decision maker on the 2nd grievance of Tempest.

That's the crux of the question. The C is claiming discrimination, not constructive dismissal for example. The C needs to show that the length of the grievance either was because they were trans, or caused them a particular difficulty (more than a non trans EE). If neither of those things are true then it's not discrimination and not relevant.

While I think he has a point about 5 days v 10 months - and yes I know it wasn't 5 days to a decision, and some of the delay was caused by ST himself - my fear is that the tribunal will find in his favour on the delay.....
...
and that will be hailed by TRAs as a complete win, and incontrovertible proof that terfs are not just hatefuelled bigots, but literal criminals who should be obliterated wherever they dare to pop up🙄

I hated Yamner and Viva Engage at my old job. Couldn’t even find things I knew were on there sometimes!

The powers that be would put business critical updates on there rather than email and I’d miss it because it was another thing to check alongside email, teams channels, and the multiple intranets for each are of the business.

And notifications weren’t great either. I think it was “everything” or nothing” emailed to you. I think you had the choice of individual messages, daily updates or weekly summary.

From TT:

A link to the witness statement of Mr. Moore.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1itSiFmneuXeuj4SUgF6ZOM7i4ur6-Bhh/view?usp=drive_link

From TT:

We are waiting for the video conference to begin.

The comment made by AstonUniversityPothole (that some colleagues haven't even bothered to instal Viva Engage) is something that I hope AL or NC are able to ask the other DEFRA witnesses. It does sound as if ST has gone out of their way to be offended (How can you feel unsafe knowing that somebody might be wearing a SEEN lanyard if you are either off sick or working from home?).

Every so often I wonder whether ST's aim is to be signed off to take early retirement on the grounds of their poor mental health. Doubtless that sort of thing is possible in the Civil Service.

(Back from holiday with some newly acquired Tunnocks chilling in the freezer).

From TT:

Participants and observers are returning to the hearing room. We should begin soon.

NC was asking the judge (again) if the clerks could be respectfully prompted to get on with giving her client EDW the remote observer link she had requested because she is not able to attend today. Just as she was asking it appeared that the court could see EDW was being admitted.

From TT:

HH continues. Good afternoon, page 988
Sd - yes
HH - C's 2nd g/x where complaining about posts has seen after failure to implement recs from 1st g/x. Please read to refresh memory. Do you accept that K Harmon's view, you're silent on this post, do you accept view that posts went beyond what was acceptable
SD where can I read that
HH directs, the i/x established that post on3 May plus others not appropriate in workplace, did you accept that view
SD - accept distressing for ST
HH - accept view that not appropriate in workplace SD don't think I had a view

From TT:

I didn't draw a boundary around what was and wasn't acceptable. I sought to see if moderation was taken place and that a control mechanism was being put in place to create boundaries around material and that was put in place after that date
HH ST clear complainant was exposed to this conduct, you say you didn't have a view on that
SD I say that ST found offensive and distressing but also of the view that DEFRA was trying to balance how people in SEEN could have these convos and they aren't inherently offensive, subsequent closing of access, I'm not

I hated Yamner and Viva Engage at my old job. Couldn’t even find things I knew were on there sometimes!

Tell me about it. I once had to find the business announcement about an ongoing system-fault in something else. I knew it had to be there. Was it on the front page, for everyone logging in to look for it? No, the news that was in pride of place was a minor success in a branch in Leeds, and someone getting a service award.

I guessed it had been put in a group, so I had to go through all the generic groups we're all automatically subscribed to as employees. I did find it eventually, but it was an unnecessary ordeal.

SD=SM?

From TT:

saying the post should or shouldn't be there. I'm saying it improved because of the changed environment
HH C complaining about GR harassment, exposed to this harassing material because a TW
SD I understood that and that ST remedy was to remove expression from those with other pc DEFRA trying to balance.

HH when someone makes a grievance, you need to comment on that complaint
SD I wasn't looking at indiv posts, I was looking at controls being put in place
HH in g/x ineffective mod of posts causing harassment to trans people, say that ST shared posts

Yes, this is exactly ST's problem. Viva Engage could be shut down and he would never have to see any GC related content at work, but he still wouldn't be happy unless the actual SEEN network was shut down. ST couldn't cope with the thought of GC members of staff being able to engage with each other, even if he couldn't see it happening.