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.

God that’s awful.

What an absolute load of codswallop. Her career sounds piecemeal at best with short term tasks that she likely didn’t have much impact in. Prepare for no deal. Give out food during covid. No long term strategic impact.

And now she is ‘director general of civil service reform and efficiency’.

This person has a Civil Service mandate for reform - what? All the men in dresses suppressing legal freedom and rights, harassing women and taking six months off at a time. Putting out surveys covering 167 people out of 450,000? The CS is in a worse state if she is leading the reform.

If a retired person can come back for this mess so too can big bold Janice.

She sounds like someone from W1A and not in a good way.

Glad to see some caught wind she was rubbish and the job was pulled. And clearly DEFRA weren’t rushing to have her back.

Hubris Janice. Reform and efficiency weren’t your strong suit.

“reflect, regroup and work out what's next”.

translation - ‘avoid a tribunal and avoid sensible Janice who won’t let me have a plum non job.’

My sides!

Sadly not. That letter......wow.

I seem to recall that ignoring HR advice was also a feature of the Sandie Peggie case.

Just read NBs statement - nice to see that some elements of the civil service are able to stick to the Code, and able to do a decent job.

Are we hearing from her or is it just the written statement? My cast list is getting very confused.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine Nicola Bettesworth was sworn in yesterday and we'll hear more evidence from her today AFAIK

Edit: a word

Hello - sorry im not managing to keep up properly- is the letter from JH and part of NB’s WS? Where can I find it please

thanks for all your efforts (again) on this case

Sorry wims I can't volunteer for any C&P today. In a CFS flare at the moment, need to stay horizontal and take some wibbly wobbly pain killers. If I am feeling better tomorrow I am happy to do some tomorrow.

'looking for a me-shaped person'
'I am perpetually over-excited'

God, she's awful. I can just imagine NB trying to get a word in edgeways at that meeting. JH didn't listen to a word she said, did she? Just bulldozed on with her 'recommendations'.

re: Janet Hughes moving around it’s not unusual for someone to take a sabbatical but the risk is you don’t have a job to come back to that you want. At DG level there is clearly very few roles so I would assume it’s riskier. I was on loan to another department and when my loan was finishing the job I was offered at my parent department wasn’t what I wanted so I applied for a permanent position elsewhere. I’m not a DG though so there was more to choose from. What I can’t get over is that this complaint was being reviewed by so many seniors across Defra group. My paths crossed with Janet’s office on the regular and they were so busy it was very difficult to get them to work on BAU stuff. Also for context at the time this was all going on Defra was just starting its endless headcount reductions and recruitment freeze so HR was very very busy.

That’s a good point - if the dates fit could this be used in mitigation about how long the ST process took? Or should HR just admit it took ages because many of the staff were unable to practice the Nolan principles and remain impartial?

'... 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.

Well, Stonewall Law is what Stonewall believed the law ought to be and not what the Law actually was. So NB is very delicately saying that what JH believed ought to be true and fair was not actually true or fair. Or to be less delicate and nuanced about it "JH had taken sides and I had to put her right".

I’ve said this many times on mn, HRs primary job is to minimise risk for the business. Jo Phoenix’s ET had two HR witnesses the HRD who was awful and an HR Advisor who was the only credible witness because she knew her job.

HR gets a bad reputation as they are seen as blockers - the computer says no. In reality good HR provides lawful advice and helps the business out of the hole they have dug for themselves because they ignored or didn’t get HR advice.

NB told JH what the law meant and why SEEN could not be eradicated like ST wanted. JH ignored her and made the recommendation anyway. NB then took responsibility and spoke to ST setting out why the recommendation was not lawful - NB could have delegated that but didn’t.

JH is unlikely to be a good witness for DEFRA/RPA so they have not called her.

Thanks for linking to NB’s witness statement. She comes across as a fair minded and professional individual who was put in a difficult position and navigated her way through sticking to sensible (legally required) boundaries.

Having followed a number of these Tribunals, it strikes me that having someone like this in charge makes the difference between the organisation facing this issue in Tribunal (where the organisation will probably ‘win’) and it facing a Tribunal claim from EDW, if NB had followed JH’s suggestions (which it would probably have lost).

When NB uses the word ‘inclusive’ I actually feel she means it, rather than the usual use of ‘inclusive of all ‘nice’ views like mine’.

Random brain dump as I catch up.

IWD vs not only Pride month but also LGBTQ+ History month.

Hurty feels. I have developed a dairy allergy and can no longer eat cheese. People talking about nice cheese, and there being very few dairy-free options in the staff canteen makes me sad. Could I take that to a tribunal?

Toxicity. If someone steals my wallet and I shout 'Stop thief!', which of us is engaging in toxic behaviour?

Good point - someone should count up the number of days spent on celebration of the LGBTQ+ versus women & girls. Maybe also posts on yammer. Then show that per rate of CS staff population … it would clearly show a bias in one direction

Kirschcherries JH is unlikely to be a good witness for DEFRA/RPA so they have not called her

Right - it's so easy to forget that what we're getting here is not the people we need in order to understand what went on, but the people selected by each side to make them look good!

The letter is the appeal outcome letter which JH sent to ST. It's referred to in NB's statement and is in the bundle. JH ignored what NB told her about the actual law and made recommendations based on hurty feelz Stonewall 'law' which would have been unlawful for Defra to enact.

JH didn't start the shitstorm (that's on ST) but she turbocharged it. And the grown-ups like NB and DH have been left to clear it up.

How differently would this have played out if JH hadn’t made those initial recommendations against NB’s advice? The second grievance, and ultimately this tribunal, is all based on Defra’s failure to implement those recommendations, which they couldn’t lawfully implement. They gave ST the belief that he truly had been heinously harassed, that other people could see it too, and that the eradication of SEEN was a real possibility, so when it didn’t happen the only possible explanation was that people had been “leaned on”, presumably by some genocidal anti trans fascists lurking in the shadows who just wanted to hurt him. SM’s much regretted initial draft serves a similar function. And that’s where Defra really fucked up - not so much in any of the subsequent process, but in allowing this fantasy to develop in the first place.

Something like 50 to 0. Though tailed off in recent times.
There will be a clear eradication of the words woman, girl, female. It was either maternity or menopause policy, that they announced a change in , that managed to nor mention any of those pesky words.

To be fair with the exception of a maternity policy other family friendly policies such as Adoption, shared parental, paternity, parental etc. can apply to any employee regardless of their sex.

For example two male employees can adopt a baby, one is the primary adopter and gets adoption leave the other gets paternity leave. They can opt for shared parental leave and parental leave. Using they them and employee rather than she/he her/him is valid as all employees have potential eligibility irrespective of their sex.

The same applies to nearly all HR policies, staff handbooks etc. which apply to employees.

😂
reminds me of every time I hear that a TW threw the first brick at Stonewall, I ask myself if that brick was a stone or one of them big manly non-'dolls' - creates some interesting pictures in my head! 😁

I wish JH was on the witness stand getting called to account. She's a dangerous fool and responsible for much of this mess. If she had listened to NB this might have ended a long time ago. The cost to the taxpayer of this case in court time, legal fees and diverted internal resources is sickening. I'm glad the lid is being taken off in public but JH has scuttled away and I hope Naomi can highlight the damage she and people like her have done.