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.

Am I right in assuming HH was insisting that SM’s real decision was laid out in the first draft, and that was in favour of ST?

And SM is saying, it doesn’t matter what I said in the draft, I was advised to change it, probably because it was against the law (as now detailed in FWS) and in any case ST would never have seen the draft in normal circumstances. So stop asking me about the fucking draft, because it is my final report that matters and what’s more you don’t actually know what was in it because privilege.

And HH is saying, but the draft!!!

Did I get that right?

Exactly! I find the whole line of questioning from HH very distressing tbh. It starts from the premise that GC is anti-trans and denies the existence of trans and there is no room for anyone to question that position in their replies and that is why SM is struggling a bit here and there in my view. Given that the premise on which the questions are being asked is so faulty, how can you answer reasonably beyond what he has done.

The problem is that having been 'trained' the basis for his thinking is so Stonewalled that the process seems to struggle in the paradigm of it.

HH's questioning isn't really about whether process was followed but whether process agreed with ST's position and if it didn't agree with ST's position, or didn't find the posts that were left up were, in fact, distressing then the process wasn't sufficient.

I don't see how any of that can make sense unless you have been fullt TRA'd and I find it deeply upsetting that HH is arguing from a PoV that can't be challenged as it is presented by the likes of SM because he has lost any capacity to wrangle the illogicality of it. He's made some valiant efforts.

I find it upsetting that so many here are, based on HH's really problematic line of questioning, that SM didn't serve process. He's not undertaking a criminal investigation. I think its clear he did his best and that's all process can really attempt.

I think the SP case is revealing in different ways, in that it was clear process was wholly avoided because process would have highlighted the unfairness of the approach.

Process here clearly did highlight that and so a more reasonable response was worked on, which was, of course, not to ST's satisfaction.

I came into the hearing today just before this point:

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,

and thought this witness sounds like another grown up in the room. SM said around this point something to the effect that yes he understood that ST was upset and was concerned that the organisation should support ST to deal with that upset (and by inference, not change the organisation because the actions of SEEN colleagues are reasonable).

HH at 2117, section 6, we looked at this, a couple of add'l points, ST had said could still points made in other networks, could still see points made in menopause group
SD ST mentioned but didn't give me any evidence
HH did you ask about it
SD I asked for evidence, none was give

This sums up every single thread where we have TRAs me-railing. They want to talk about emotion, what big meanies we all are and how we should #bekind; we want to discuss facts and evidence.

Although it has been made clear that ST contributed to the delay somewhat.

I also think it is reasonable that given the changing legal landscape from Stonewall to FWS and Forstater that this would cause a delay too? A reasonable one ie to make sure everyone was sufficiently conversant with EQA?

From TT:

We return.
Nicola Bettesworth is the next witness, affirms.

From TT:

AL - NB, make yourself comfortable, find your WS in the bundle, should be open in front of you, is that your name and address, final page, have you had the opportunity to review and satisfy yourself of it's contents, is there a signature?
NB yes

HH you are group chief people officer for DEFRA, shared services to 5 arms length bodies, including RPA, Natural England, Environment Agency.
NB yes
HH you say DEFRA provides services across all those agencies
NB yes
HH in effect you were senior HR decision maker

The business about dealing with grievances within 5 days. That cannot be right. Not if the process is to be at all rigorous. It would make more sense for it to be acknowledged within 5 days and the process started.

From TT:

to handle SEEN, Yammer etc
NB the policies are made in conjunction with the board of all those agencies, rather than me being sole decision maker
HH you say in para 4 that the RPA is an executive agency of DEFRA but effectively the employer of the C is DEFRA
NB the employer is RPA

J reminder to speak into the microphone to the room
HH you say EA and NE are non departmental public bodies,
NB yes
HH so legally separate in terms of workplace platforms, Yammer, then VIVA engage they were DEFRA platforms
NB platforms that DEFRA set up and managed

From TT:

whether others used those platforms were up to them. We were trying to standardise and harmonise so that there were fewer platforms to manage.

HH - RPA, EA, NE platforms were DEFRA controlled
NB DEFRA managed from a technical perspective
HH you describe Yammer as shared collab tool for comm, wellbeing, available across all DEFRA including ALBs
NB yes

HH para 9, fifth line you say that Yammer was comm and engagement tool and fell outside direct responsibility of HR, but when topics touched on EDI, HR took an active interest, when SEEN discussions touched on EDI, HR took an active interest, no longer simply an HR matter

NB yes and communications
HH you say that Yammer was tool owned by DDTS, is that the IT people behind Yammer
NB yes
HH how many people active on Yammer, was it 25k

Totes. The fact that there is no evidence of this suggest to me, given the clear evidence that material has been forwarded to ST that he should have had no sight of, that this was a workaround in trying to force those undertaking process to look for stuff that ST couldn't have admitted to seeing. I think SM had got his measure by then and had clocked he was actively looking to be offended.

From TT:

NB we have 30k in DEFRA group, I don't know the numbers active on Yammer
HH likely to be substantial thousands?
NB in the thousands I would expect
HH there's always a foreseeable risk of misuse, inappropriate content

NB the backdrop to employment is that we have codes of conduct, civil service of Nolan principles, we employ adults and we expect that people follow codes of conducts, we don't go into a communication platform like Yammer expecting that there will be a failure of those standard we set for people

HH always a foreseeable risk that people don't act in accordance with those policies
NB its a risk
HH and if it touches on EDI, it's of important to HR, so if breaches are observed, HR needs to take steps
NB there are many networks using Yammer, we are not the owner of Yammer, yes I have an interest if there was

From TT:

an EDI matter,

HH you wouldn't intervene if there was a disagreement about hydrangeas for example but would if there was racist content
NB if it was brought to my attention
HH DEFRA group was responsible for training group owners, information owners.
NB yes

HH so DEFRA group were not a passive bystander were not a passive bystander in the way that SEEN content was hosted, governed or moderated
NB no
NC asks for repeat of above
HH the way in which you governed or moderated was set by a number of policies and codes

"NB the backdrop to employment is that we have codes of conduct, civil service of Nolan principles, we employ adults and we expect that people follow codes of conducts, we don't go into a communication platform like Yammer expecting that there will be a failure of those standard we set for people"

Finally someone saying it. We employ adults and, one supposes it follows that they expect them to act like adults.

From TT:

J am I right that Yammer was originally available across gov
NB I believe it was widely available across gov
HH core values and code of conduct, we have civil service code, in one of the later bundles....
J perhaps the witness could tell us which the policies were rather than jumping around the rather vulnerable bundles

HH was going to ask the witness what were relevant aspects
NB for civil service orgs we have the code, the public service equivalent are the Nolan principles of public life, each org has its conduct policy, part of a broad suite of HR policies

HH take in stages, well known duty to act with honesty, integrity, not to frustrate implementation of policies, carrying out responsibilities that reflects CS commitment to diversity or in a way that discriminates against particular individuals, now to DEFRA

J perhaps the witness could tell us which the policies were rather than jumping around the rather vulnerable bundles

Vulnerable bundles?

Won't someone think of the poor most marginalised of marginalised things, the vulnerable bundle.

NB the backdrop to employment is that we have codes of conduct, civil service of Nolan principles, we employ adults and we expect that people follow codes of conducts

So pleased to see the Nolan principles referred to.

And indeed hydrangeas.

From TT:

code of conduct. Deals with diversity, equality, respect at work, provide environment free of bullying and harassment, culture based on mutual trust and respect, no tolerance of bullying and harassment, clearly applicable to this case.
NB yes

HH finally, this is the guidance on EDI responsibilities within DEFRA to highlight providing inclusive leadership, those working for you treated fairly, providing a working environment free of bullying and harassment.
NB yes
HH standing behind all this is PSED

HH take in stages, well known duty to act with honesty, integrity,...

Says the side defending a man claiming to be a woman.

HH seems to want to expound at length here......NB hardly getting a look in.

From TT:

to eliminate discrimination, harassment, equality of opportunity to foster good relations between those who share a pc and with those who don't
NB yes
HH so that duty is anticipatory and not just reactive
NB yes
HH you have to give advance consideration to policy decisions

NB haven't read the para recently
HH just says you need to think in advance how things will play out
NB yes
HH so you say that you weren't aware of any concerns in DEFRA on sex and gender, but aware of the wider societal debate, and likely to be mirrored in DEFRA

Hail hydrangeas

Will the vulnerable bundles and the wandering bundles ever get together do you think?

So HH thinks they should have anticipated ST and his mob kicking off.

Maya's win is being presented as " a harm" by HH.

It can hardly be a "wider societal debate" and oppressive acts of hate and intolerance at the same time.