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.

Have I understood this right? The first investigation found that C had been harassed, and he appealed because the proposed resolution of banning SEEN wasn't put into effect.

At any time did they reverse the decision of the investigation?

What if the ET finds that there was no harassment in the first place?

HH's only hope is to show that the investigation team failed to accept that there had been discrimination.

[Sorry bad break: end of last was "DH This gets to heart of qs SM"]

From TT:

addressing in his findings. In my review I considered SEEN network, and evidence C and KH provided. SM noted both posts had been moderated - one changed and one judged acceptable. That was the specific evidence brought forward. SM reached reasonable conclusion

re what had happened to those posts.
HH Posts themselves, whether discriminatory and second whether had been mod properly. C was asking for recognition that SM decision had been wrong and that posts were discriminatory towards C.
J [quoting doc] All we can do is read letter

from C. [reads c already found discrimination and harassment]
HH C is seeking, in first part, recognition - KH said were inappropriate.
AL Decision maker - isn't that Janet Hughes
J Not easy, this letter. Very dense. Not a criticism.
HH This is re failure to engage with

J Is it?
AL Janet Hughes?
J G Appeal decision maker, isn't it?
HH She has a finding..
AL Need to take us to the finding
HH Is it actually in dispute that JH made a finding that C has been harassed.
AL If finding made of D&H needs to be put
J My recollection of how this all

My note: argh this is very bitty but I can't hold off posting the next batch any longer!

From TT:

started - DH asked re C and discrimination.
[to and fro above AL/HH/J sometimes difficult to hear]
DH I understand C wanted me to acknowledge that something had happened in past. My job was to consider reasonableness of second G decision.
J Point C making 1441p

finding evidence of no inappropriate actions over past 6 months didn't take account of past discrimination. Did you consider?
DH I saw that point. My job to look at March-June and decide if SM properly considered and reached appropriate conclusion.

My note: Phew, full stop.

Back to square one. DH says he has done his job appropriately and within the remit of his responsibility.

I'm gratified to see that the Judge is interrupting HH too. Maybe not as much as NC but he seems equally able to jump in when he feels like it.

StellaAndCrow · Today 11:59

Tsk! Away with your stereotyping, Greggs sauage rolls are mingin'! It's literal violence!

😂

This is very vicky P meets Humphrey.

It's the 'Return of the Lanyards' now.......

From TT:

HH C emailed you in May and gave you extracts of current guidance and provided link
DH Yes
HH EDI guidance is highly relevant to G on D&H
DH I do
HH But you don't engage with these points in your outcome letter
DH No, nothing here changes my view of reasonableness of SM

decision taken in April 2024.
HH Would like to move onto q of lanyards. Break or push on?
AL Would prefer push on.
HH On to lanyards in your WS. C concerned c wearing of lanyards. C makes parallels of other symbolism not allowed in office. Why should SEEN be able to throw

their views in my face. Raises this as eg of harassment allowed to continue.
DH Think so.
HH Annex to her grievance.
[DH reads]
HH Second G - also in terms of reference, the q of lanyards. In your WS you say didn't think wearing is obectionably offensive and not raised/relevant

Former trade union caseworker here. Just to comment that it’s not uncommon for grievance or disciplinary investigations and appeals to take way longer than the timescales laid out in policies or by ACAS: the ppl appointed to head them have to do this on top of their normal (often heavy) workload, and often have to be strong-armed into “taking their turn”. It’s a thankless job no-one wants to do, and finding time to set up meetings with all the ppl involved can genuinely take forever, particularly when some ppl have behaved badly and have every reason to delay meeting with the investigator.

As a trade union caseworker a large part of my role was to try get things moving by reminding everyone involved how horrendously stressful it was for the person I was representing and could they please all get a move on. In the case of ST, I’m not sure he was represented by a union, but by a:gender? In which case why didn’t the a:gender caseworker chase up & chivvy the process along? Too busy policing GC staff no doubt.

HH But you don't engage with these points in your outcome letter
DH No, nothing here changes my view of reasonableness of SM decision

I'm warming to him now

Now HH is trying to force DH to say that lanyards are offensive. He says objectively speaking they are not.

I agree with that, but as someone who had to sit on quite a few, there were a limited number of people of a certain grade to do them, and obviously they had to be from different departments, and due to the grade had very meeting heavy calenders... it was a nightmare if you were the selected person to fit it in at certain times.

Coming soon to an office cubicle near you.

I think lanyards are a form of passive aggression and can be extremely offensive. Rainbow lanyards, too.

[Sorry - here it wasn't clear that it was a bad break till the next part arrived...I give up!]

From TT:

to G appealed.
HH But it was raised in appeal
DH Yes. We discussed when we met. And C followed up with an email.
HH To terms of ref SM agreed with C. Use of lanyards was one of things SM agreed to consider as part of G. One of the things you were reviewing.
DH Yes

HH Do it was relevant to whether G should be upheld or not.
DH You are right. But wouldn't have changed my view - it isn't discriminatory re having a GC belief.
HH Do you accept C re how wearing lanyards made her feel
DH Yes
HH But not to uphold
DH Tension between right to hold

and express belief and not be discrim.Other Defra networks have lanyards then reasonable to me, notwithstanding the fact that C found it distressing, that SEEN should have lanyard as well.

HH Not so simple. Someone wearing lanyard in office says it means I don't accept your ID
DH But discriminatory to say to another network you can't have a lanyard with a specific colour or logo.

If lanyards are offensive, so are ST's. I'm pro only company lanyards, personally.

We all know that lanyards can be bleedin' annoying but we don't all take six months off work because of them.

J Please concentrate on case.

HH is going AWOL on Palestine/Gaza now.

In fairness to HH, she's doing her job of x-examining a witness, putting her client's case to him, and giving the the opportunity to respond.
That's what she's supposed to do- she may not be lanyardphobic herself as a private citizen, but has to put forward the idea that they are

I keep my staff card in a pocket or my bag. Ever since I went to a pub post work 20 odd years ago and forgot to take it off and some bloke creepily addressed me by my name and I didn't realise I hadn't taken it off.

From TT:

HH Palestine supporters express views against Israel...
DH Not going to...
J not going to help us
HH NHS..

[to and fro]
J Please concentrate on case.
HH Is it okay to reduce expression to reduce impact on others
DH Hypothetical q I don't feel equipped to answer.

DH Defra trying to negotiate difficult path between 2 PCs
HH To criticism of SM conclusion no wrongdoing in terms of posts or moderation. SM says he didn't i/x the moderation of Seen posts
DH Wider i/x into posts - whether SEEN network or more general. Would need to see

DH Tension between right to hold and express belief and not be discrim. Other Defra networks have lanyards then reasonable to me, notwithstanding the fact that C found it distressing, that SEEN should have lanyard as well.

Yes, but she has a such a thin case.