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.

If anyone mentioned single sex spaces again esp toilets, please could you tag me. I know of the agender toilet document (which is all sorts of wrong) and I know previously ST mentioned the worry about toilets - I don’t know if that referred to men’s or women’s though. It would be useful to know that the preferred policy was that no discussion was ‘allowed’ if ST was using the women’s and also if they started changing designs.

The Home Office spent a lot of money changing to ‘gender-neutral’ designs in 2018. Many women ended up going to a different building for many reasons including men ‘forgeting’ to close the door while urinating. I always thought it odd that these toilets didn’t stick to building regs and legislation.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-6065075/Female-Home-Office-employees-refusing-use-new-36-000-gender-neutral-toilets.html

I suppose she can only ask the questions put in front of her but from my read there has been plenty of opportunity to say that it is equally important to consider the positive impact a post about IWD would have had. The fact that both HH and NB (And J it seems to me) accept that posting about IWD is a 'catalyst' for TRAs being upset without ANY mention of the fact that that is an extreme view is very upsetting.

Quote of the day from SM

Our hot topics were things like flooding.

So nice that the grown ups are in the building.

I think the judge is going to find it hard to find against DEFRA - especially since the whole climate was and is a rapidly changing one. Staff members involved with the investigation have, so far, been fairly consistent in stating they were most concerned with correct process and with the balancing of equalities and rights.

If the judge finds against them, I suspect an appeal would be fairly imminent.

My best, maybe most hopeful, interpretation is that the judge is trying to show sympathy towards the complainant so that he cannot be accused of showing a lack of sympathy and negative bias towards their complaint.

Do any organisations have a back bone to say “I’m sorry you’re upset about this but you have to adapt and act in a mature way and accept people have different views. We didn’t have these tantrums from GC employees at the bombardment of all things associated with trans people, so we don’t expect that from trans people. Now stop seeking stuff out to be offended about, and just get on with your job “ .

Witness statements of Bettesworth and Moore both on the TT Substack.

Thanks @Justabaker - pass on our best to the team.

@Justabaker thank you.

For everyone confused about the relationship between Departments, ALBs etc. Nicola Bettesworth in her witness statement helpfully links to this document https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5aaa590b40f0b66b5fb4bb76/Executive_Agencies_Guidance.PDF

Wouldn’t that be brilliant?

Nicola Bettesworth’s witness statement is very interesting and well worth a read.

Would it be correct to say that ST would find any investigation outcome that did not confirm his opinions offensive and distressing.

Any negative outcome to one of his complaints would make him feel unsafe at work.

Therefore the only acceptable outcome is to affirm whatever ST claims, all other outcomes are clear harassment.

I am not overly familiar with Substack. Could you someone tell me where exactly I can find NB's witness statement? Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VHBgxJZm7UxOEh0fAyTtCGmVxzUyLDsU/view

Hopefully works

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/

This is the starter page for Tribunal Tweets Substack. Click on a pretty picture (!) or use search to go back years for coverage of case after case after case...

Its refreshing to read NBs statement. Measured and addresses fairly both sides of the debate. I particularly liked her comment to the C that she did not believe she was being exposed to harm. Ooooft. I can’t cut and paste but I think its para 30 or 31.

I agree. Shame that Tamara Finkelstein didn’t also publish a video message to all staff celebrating women on International Women’s Day.

Always the special people who do exist and have been around forever and threw the first brick at Stonewall.

Ooh, interesting from NB's WS. Does this mean, if I am interpreting this correctly, that NB met with JH and explained the necessary balancing and was aware from this meeting JH's bias to C and then, crucially, after that meeting JH did not forward her draft outcome letter which included the recommendations which could not be inplemented because law?

25. I met with JH later that day as part of the appeal hearing process and you can see the minutes at 670-672.

26. In that meeting I sought to explain the legal obligation to respect the protected belief behind SEEN, and that our focus had to be on finding a way to balance the competing rights of both protected characteristics in play – hence the development of the PoC, and the moderation processes now in place. My perception was that JH had a genuine empathy for the Claimant’s position and was personally invested in finding a resolution that was based on what she believed ought to be true and fair. As a HR team, we had to take a more neutral, balanced view of the whole situation and balance the competing protected characteristics in play, which is what I tried to explain in this first meeting.

27. In addition to being a contributor to the appeal process, in my role as group ChiefPeople Officer, I would have expected to have been engaged on a draft appeal outcome letter before it was issued, if it included my team being asked to deliver a specific set of outcomes / recommendations. In this case I did not receive or provide input on a draft and was not sent the outcome letter in advance of it being sent to the Claimant (657-664). I received the letter on 16 February 2023 (654).

So JH really fucked them over. She set out recommendations which could not be implemented, after being told that they couldn't be implemented, without checking with the boss who had become directly involved.

By doing so she set expectations for the C that NB had to manage down. There is no doubt in my mind that JH stirred the shit pot on purpose.

NB is being extremely measured in her WS but it couldn't be clearer.

None of this makes HH questioning make sense, in my view.

Thanks for the nudge - I agree, well worth a read.

It felt like something of
a tightrope to walk, because although the Claimant expressed that she was upset, those colleagues who were part of SEEN also felt threatened and distressed.

This is the bit of NB's statement that stood out to me. Not least for the subtle difference between 'the C expressed that she was upset' and SEEN colleagues 'felt threatened and distressed'.

Yes and such a huge relief to see that mentioned for the first time. I am therefore further frustrated she didn't say the same in questioning today.

Yes, JH shld be subject to a disciplinary over that. She covered it with the weasel words of making them “recommendations” rather than mandated actions, but it’s pretty clear what she did. I’ve only worked in the private sector, where to do something so blatantly not in the employer’s interest wld be a marching out the door, do not pass go, do not collect £200 event.

NB’s description of the organisational structure, the difference between civil servants and public servants and all the duplications of policies (or policies with slight variations for no real reason) and HRs is also gobsmacking. What an expensive mess. There’s a lot of consolidation and cost cutting that cld happen there with zero impact on delivery to the actual end clients.

Interesting also that neither EDW nor AM work for either of the respondents!

Interesting also that neither EDW nor AM work for either of the respondents!

Do you remember the kerfuffle at the start of the hearing about how claims under 119(2) of the EA2010 (dealing with anyone acting as an employer's agent) were mistakenly deleted by the claimant's solicitor in 2024 (I think) and were not now permitted to be restored? I think this is relevant.

I will laugh if the panel throw out the claim only because the claimant sued the wrong organizations.

At a guess I would suspect that JH probably thought that by presenting NB and DEFRA with a fait accompli, they would just roll over and say "What's done is done." Fortunately, someone was made of sterner stuff.

Coupled with these two nuggets

My perception was that JH had a genuine empathy for the Claimant’s position and was personally invested in finding a resolution that was based on what she believed ought to be true and fair.

'... based on what she believed ought to be ...' is quite a lot of words to choose to use, I'm not 100% sure of their exact nuance.

As a HR team, we had to take a more neutral, balanced view of the whole situation and balance the competing protected characteristics in play, which is what I tried to explain in this first meeting.

Ouch

It's incredible that the most senior HR person (from NB's witness statement) more or less did say this, and employees carried on arguing in the thread below.

It's almost beyond belief.