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 this email response from EC seems to be largely giving evidence about how to structure report
SD yes
HH doesn't criticise or give any advice on changing conclusions
SD it says that everything should be properly evidenced and it was that advice that made me go back and about how to structure report

SD yes

HH doesn't criticise or give any advice on changing conclusions
SD it says that everything should be properly evidenced and it was that advice that made me go back and start again with a clearer view
HH EC doesn't say you haven't thought about this evidence or that evidence
SD I don't think that was her role

HH did you speak to anyone else
SD no one in HR
HH who did you speak to
SD I sought legal advice, subject to privilege
HH and after

ST had said could still points made in other networks, could still see points made in menopause group

It's just vile that he was sneaking on the menopause group. I really feel for the women in that group, having it invaded like that.

SD I sought legal advice, subject to privilege

And the lawyer said "you can't bloody do that. We'll get sued by SEEN. Start again."

From TT:

that you changed all your conclusions
SD we're going to do this again, I didn't have conclusions after the advice, I wrote my decision letter
HH you weren't acting independently were you, you were following approach agreed by DEFRA in 2022
AL that needs to be explained

HH you weren't acting independently,
SD I was independently reviewing a grievance
HH in large part you were reviewing JH decision of 9 Feb 2023, and that outcome from JH was that DEFRA doesn't have an obligation to provide open platform to GC people,
SD yes

For people super confused about how all the departments mentioned fit together. Defra group is made up of core Defra and 32 arms length bodies. The Environment Agency is one of those ALBs. Each organisation has its own structure and HR but big stuff like this means that HR in core Defra is also involved. The case worker Steve refers to works for the ministry of justice (MoJ) this is because
In Defra if you have a serious HR issue you get allowed to speak to an MoJ specialist HR caseworker - Defra doesn’t have it’s own because in the grand scheme of things Defra is a small department. In my experience MoJ case workers are really good. Whatever you think of the claimant the delays experienced here are really poor. No one is forced to look at Yammer or the replacement VivaEngage. All company notices go on the Intranet which is a separate system. You can (and I do) avoid VE entirely. I no longer work for Defra.

SM losing his cool now........why doesn't the judge step in and put HH out of her misery.

I don't blame him. I'd be getting a bit shouty by now.

I feel like the judge needs to stop this. It feels like harassment of a witness trying to coerce him into a specific answer she is wanting.

From TT:

HH her appeal outcome made 11 recommendations to NB (Nicola Bettesworth), one was no open platform
SD yes
HH did you speak to JH about her decision
SD no
HH did you speak to NB
SD, no I asked Karl to make sure covered in witness statements same with Carolyn Airs

HH now to 670, this a record of meeting between JH, NB and one other, before JH reached her decision, did you ever see this
SD I can't recall
J who were other people? Claire and Jack Webb
HH I believe they were HR advisers
AL - checking the cast list, I will check, one an HR

But why would you sign up to the SEEN group if you found their content distressing?

Viva Engage is basically a work facebook, including group function.

My experience is that my employer has set up x number of default all-employee groups to categorise relevant announcements by, and then doesn't use those public groups properly, which means I have to check through all of them. But if I had signed up to the private LGBTQ+ employee group (which I haven't!) I wouldn't check that one for IT updates. It would be on me if I pointlessly trawled through the LGBTQ+ network for information about computer system outages and I didn't like what I read about TWAW.

From TT:

caseworker
Inaudible, J, HH saying thank you,
HH read the conversation record of JH,
SD right
HH looks like legal advice has been clearly explained to JH,
SD I don't know what that advice is
J how could this witness know that? We will hear from NB, you can ask her

HH I will reserve. Your conclusion on issue of open platform, you say decision to uphold because many of recommendations are in place and effective, I won't take you to contradictory evidence that you hadn't said that 3 weeks previously......sorry Judge just trying to prune my questions in light of your direction earlier.......

J on this your conclusion on adequate steps to have an open platform, is that the conclusion of Harmon in his i/x report
SD yes, that was in his ix report, also ST's inability to provide with any further evidence,

Thank you QuietBlueFrog, that was very useful

I fear the menopause group actively encouraged male members in the same way as EA Women's Group changed

Basically ST didn't help his own case by failing to provide enough evidence.

HH is still thinking.........🤔

From TT:

[HH still thinking]
HH I think that may be it
J, just allow me to check my notes.
HH one final area, your failure to i/x SEEN or the posts, you say that Cs suspicions weren't sufficient reason to i/x
SD yesacceptable and Duncan Fery's report

SD it was all from the prior period, it was all from before Aug 2023, by Feb 2024, no evidence had been produced. Its beyond my remit to go looking for such, I looked at the networks, and if not in I could not see SEEN, I felt that any

HH but you had K's i/x report that said posts went beyond what was reasonable person, who wanted to do their job, would not come across this content, they would really have to go looking for it

HH but C said they could see the content on home page
ST said that but could not provide any evidence
HH the posts caused harm, your draft says harmful

There's a bit of a culture clash there I think - SM et al. wanted evidence, ST wanted unquestioning acceptance and validation of his fragile feelings.

SM: I looked at the networks, and if not in I could not see SEEN, I felt that any reasonable person, who wanted to do their job, would not come across this content, they would really have to go looking for it.

Precisely!

HH but C said they could see the content on home page
ST said that but could not provide any evidence

I think there's a lot to this. There have been several discussions on this website recently about the, let's call it "emotionalization" of justice, where the weight given to the feelings of the complainant is up for debate.

From TT:

talks about little regards for ST feelings
SD I've addressed the draft
HH your final report, you acknowledge that they actions and responses have not given ST confidence that can come to work and be safe,
SD I'm not disputing that, as an org, if we can make ST feel better we should

HH and your draft report said more should be done to protect trans rights and GR from harm
SD we're back onto the draft
HH you didn't think that steps taken were proportionate to the harm caused in the workplace
SD we're back to the draft report, you're giving a level of detail and thoroughness that I never gave it.

HH those are all my qs.

J - NC,
NC a couple of qs about Matt Walsh post, could we go back to that, can you go back to that, page 989,
SD not the actual post?
NC no the complaint

HH you didn't think that steps taken were proportionate to the harm caused in the workplace

No proof that any 'harm' was caused.

Speaking for myself, if I saw content I objectively thought was worthy of formal complaint I would take a screenshot. If not the first time, then certainly the second.

The whole trans agenda is based on the tyranny of feelings.

From TT:

NC a post complaining about 'what is a woman' and the problem that MW had said things other places that were offensive to transpeople. Was it in your remit to decide if that was true

SD no I wouldn't have considered it part of my remit
NC if he had said those things, would you have been able to say if what he'd been said to have said they were

SD no, I would have looked at the controls in the organisation
NC you were pressed by HH about whether DEFRA was an outlier in having a platform, for SEEN, bearing in mind that SEEN has branches in MoD, Dept Ed