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 - asked about the race forum, and it was put to you that there response is that they didn't agree with your view, you said you felt they were leaned on, why do you say that?
ED -the letter they replied to made no sense. It used gender ideology in the actual reply, even though we sent that was a pej term. Didn't sound like a letter that (a member she knows) would have written
HH - you received a written response, did you speak to them?
ED a couple of members who reached out who were upset, no formal discussion
HH - in terms of senior people? Any conv with them?
ED not before, no. After, no. Other than mediation

I’ve just caught up and the above exchange stands out.

It obviously hasn’t occurred to ED that the race forum may include women of faith who have to self exclude if there are not SSS.

From TT:

J Good afternoon. Continuing X exam
HH Before break asked you c your awareness of tensions GI/GC. Nicola said would talk c hot topic. This is a hot topic. Inconceivable wouldn't have been mentioned. [to docs]
HH Email from [?]Ash Louks to Claire Rowntree re t-phobic group pls

escalate. Re formation of SEEN
DH Assume so
HH You've been asked to escalate this.
DH Don't recall.
HH Your limited knowledge c legal framework re Gender legislation - you would have sought information from HR
DH Don't remember what done
HH Remember what outcome was?
DH No

DH's memory isn't great either...

Ash Louks to Claire Rowntree re t-phobic group pls
escalate. Re formation of SEEN
Don't know who AL and CR are in all this, but I note that SEEN are described as 'transphobic' without 'allegedly' or anything.
Unless words were left out in transcribing.

HH seems to be trying to show that DH was not subservient enough to the demands of trans ideology - becaue if he had been more subservient he would not have come to the judgement he did. She is framing this as a lack of profesionalism and lack of knowledge of equality laws.

Yes, it's very noticeable when someone in court wears all white in what is otherwise a sea of dark and sober colours.

From TT:

HH Your WS says you say it's important to follow policy. [to doc] Paras 71 and 72 of dispute procedure says important to keep good records throughout process. Prior to making your decision on appeal, we have no doc evidence of your reasoning process. Your WS says you have

no specific notes. Did you make notes
DH Don't recall
H Written notes with your HR case worker?
DH No
HH So in complex case you made no notes.
DH Had all the evidence and used that to draw my conclusions.
HH To letter p 1452 You say expressing GC views not discriminatory

unless expressed in such a way.
DH I must have known c this
HH Who told you
DH Don't recall
HH Someone senior in HR?
DH No, not in contact with anyone senior in HR
HH Someone else supporting you
DH Yes
[They agree on someone probably - Charles]

It's such basic level optics it makes me laugh.

I think HH is trying to show that he wasn't very thorough, didn't have all the docs, didn't look for them, didn't take notes, and he is doing a lot of 'don't recalls',
in other words that his review was not 'rigorous', as ED complained.

And you insist you have every right to contribute to research about growing up in the North East with your stories of a childhood spent surfing in Cornwall.

And that Geordies who get pissed off with you performing bad Geordie stereotypes with your bad Geordie accent are the ones with the problem not you.

I am now imagining her as Mrs Bennet.
Such flutterings.

I hope the tribunal opines on to what extent an internal review of a grievance process is required to match the procedures and expertise of the judicial system. Is DH under fire for not following the same degree of process as the Court of Appeal of England and Wales?

It's a legitimate question.

The Employment Tribunal exists to judge the questions that DH is now being accused of getting wrong. I don't think it's appropriate to say that DH getting a review wrong (if indeed he did) is evidence of harassment that itself founds a cause of action in the ET.

From TT:

HH [to p 988/9]
DH [reads]
J Clarification pls - this form is for grievance Mr Moore investigating?
HH You had sight of this?
DH Not sure. Not in list of papers sent to me and referred to in para 6 of my WS. Don't recall
J Don't recall seeing this?
DH Don't recall.

HH I took you to email from 7/5/24 from Steve Moore to you - in bullet pointed list was email from Jackie Boot and it had an attachment of second grievance.
DH I hadn't clocked it in prep for today but would have seen it
HH At some time
DH Yes
HH Claimant clearly sets

out her view, case law etc.
DH Yes
HH You didn't engage with views etc
DH I engaged on all issues considered by SM and his decision. I was reviewing the reasonableness of his decision.
HH But we agreed second part was C around failure to engage with issues.

Yes, but I suspect their version of 'rigorous' is being fully on board and clued up on the many definitions of transphobia, and of what could be considered offensive by TRAS.

I'm not observing, but I'm getting the impression from how he's answering that DH would rather be hill-walking.. 😒
Next time there's a break and it's legit to do so, maybe an observer could comment on his demeanour?

DH's job was to see whether SM had engaged with the issues wasn't it? Not to engage with the issues himself?

(Anyone else having trouble with "DH" as abbreviation?!)

Yes, rigorous means finding in their favour.

When HH says he " failed to engage with the issues"....she really means he failed to take their side. If he engaged with what they wanted him to - he would have had to conclude that what had been presented by SEEN was offensive.

Listening with half an ear while I work, but I get the impression that HH is coming at it from the angle of "why didn't you conduct a full re-investigation" and DH is saying "my job was to ensure that the Mr Moore had conducted his initial investigation correctly, not to re-litigate the whole argument". I suspect the appeal documentation contained no new facts (plenty of opinion) and no evidence that procedure/law was not followed in Mr Moore's initial review.

I review of the reasonableness of the decision does not involve reviewing anything other than the reasons for the decision.

otherwise it would be acting as if it was a further appeal.

this line of questioning is nonsense.

From TT:

DH There was alleged harassment on what was said on networks, on SEEN's views ..
HH Her appeal letter - second ground of complaint was outcome failed to engage with any issues I raised in June. Grievance of June 23 gives her views of legal framework which affected her case

DH No. My view is whether Seen can express views and SM found re this in his grievance.
HH You don't talk to C re this in meeting you had with her.
DH Could we go to notes.
HH Not accurate minutes - a summary
DH Written by my private sec
HH You don't discuss legal issues

she raised in her claim
DH I was addressing issues C raised in C's appeal.
HH In meeting in April C told you C thought Defra failed to conduct impact assessment. I asked you re docs you had - we agreed you didn't have a copy of C first grievance form. To first grievance letter.,

HH Reads c anti-trans not fostering good relations under PSED. What did you understand c C's comment
DH Defra introduces new policy and they should be assessed against PSED. My role in this was to review SM's i/x and not to go into things that happened before that.

I know that's what ED meant by 'rigorous', but I think HH is probing to see if procedures were correctly followed, and if the review could be objectively described as 'rigorous'.
That's dictionary 'rigorous', not a:Gender 'rigorous'

Clair Rowntree was Defra Head of the Food Data Transparency Partnership. Cant immediately find who was complaining to her, may have been from outside Defra? https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/food-data-transparency-partnership

This one is good at sticking to the point isn't he?
Not getting blown about.

So DH reviewed the review of a decision, perhaps they should have had DH review of a review, erm reviewed.

The truth is this whole case has been brought because ST and ED didn't like the judgement or the conclusion of their complaint. Their appeal was based on this. DH is having to show his role was not to re-try the original complaint, but to over-see the way the judgment was reached. Was it according to the correct procedures. Yes, it was.