Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-5

TT substack: 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.

Please 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:

NB - yes he would have almost certainly been captured by DCS directors
HH - Just finally I took you to that email from Jackie Boot hanford. Look at 551. Email from Ed Party to ST. Does that assist in who Catherine Price was in context of this gx?

NB - Either casework team or someone in Ed's office
J - Can we move on to the appeal. This seems very much the weeds.
HH - Movig on to Janet Hughes' (JH) position on the appeal. Go to WS para 26. You take of your meeting with JH. You say her perception was empathy for C

HH - You say you need to take a neutral balanced approach to the situation. I suggest JH who was the 1st person to look at the matter to look independently with fresh pair of eyes?

HH - Afternoon again NB. Before we move onto 1st gx appeal I want to go through some things we discussed before lunch.

Noooooooo.

”independently” fresh pair of eyes”

These eyes?

🙄

A beautiful colour. Interesting, must try that.

Did you need to adjust the yeast?

I am starting to think there just aren't enough lorryloads of popcorn on the planet.
Also, I've had enough popcorn 🙃

From TT:

NB - No because Parry had heard it. He had seen my advice around guard rails, neutral professional respectful behaviour. Can I just say JH is in the exact same DEFRA group and would have been a recipient of that email.

HH - You understand the requirements of fair process in decision making?
NB - But you failed to continue that sentence. I wouldn't normally be engaged in all outcome letters. What was different about this case is that the outcome letter was making recommendations that I was

asked to consider and potentially implement.
HH - Bit you were one of the ppl who influenced the original decision. You are reffed in Ed Parry's advice letter
NB - dont believe letter is influencing the outcome. It would be odd case of logic if that influenced Ed but not Janet.

.

I'm really warming to NB. She has a wonderfully polite way of telling HH that she is talking bollocks!

Way more polite and eloquent than I'd be!

And speaking of eyes, I need to collect mine from where they have rolled to the back of my head! 🙄

From TT:

HH - Your advice clearly did have an influence didn't it. It is referenced at 553 isn't it?
J - Pause my machine has reached a pause of death. Wait while I reload please.

HH - [repeats Q]
NB - Ed certainly drew upon advice I had issued.
HH - And given the decision was made drawing upon that advice, it wouldn't have been appropriate to involve u in decsion making recommendations for JH?

NB - I was being involved by JH as she was asking me to consider and implement recommendations
HH - Is the reason you say in para 27 that you would expect to be engaged in letter before it was issued was that you to influence the decision?

’Handling’ like that is definitely a Senior CS skill, I think they must have secret lessons!

From TT:

NB - my email was sort of repeat of CS code and what we expect. How he used that info to inform his decision in a matter for Ed. I was not seeking to influence JH recommendations. She had raised a set of expectations for ST that I could not potentially deliver on

HH - Moving on to appeal outcome letter and your response to it. Page 654. There's an email from JH to yourself where she enclosed the outcome of the appeal. What she says is [reads 'highly sensitive and will have ramifications']

It's clear from the email that she understood the orgs position to take but rejected it.
NB - Yes
J - What was the "considered view"?
NB - Our stance on the EA and approach to GC beliefs to be expressed. I covered in my testimony as part of the appeal.

’My job is to ensure legal compliance fuckwit”

Comes from having to work directly with Ministers and senior politicians. NB makes a very credible witness.

She had raised a set of expectations for ST that I could not potentially deliver on

Oh noes! Existential threat alert.

From TT:

HH - The appeal outcome letter please. 227. We see a small section redacted - it would appear she had taken legal advice?
J - Witness can't say anything about that
HH - Look at her conclusions. Just read please.

HH - Two takeaways from those conclusions. First - while colleagues can hold GC beliefs, the dept didn't have open platform to express them where it caused harm. Second, she acknowledged action taken to posts on Yammer, based on evidence action isn't suffient.

HH - She goes on to set out her reasons. In terms of the reasons, starting with recommendations as to no obligation to provide an open platform... Just look at page 659. Just read section in bold.

Indeed…as per OP’s previous comment about ‘Yes, Minister’. Having worked with some of them, I can confirm it’s as impressive up close (sadly I have little / no poker face and will never manage anything even remotely like it!).

All HR staff are caught between a rock and a hard place because of competing demands. They are trying to manage their legal obligations as best they can, and in the end will please nobody; least of all ST and his crew.

I’ve just dipped back in, is poor NB still being pummelled by the same questions? I hope someone has a got a g and t waiting for her when it’s finished (if it ever does…)

From TT:

HH - So what JH says is that by providing open platform DEFRA is not being inclusive. Just read your responses at 782. This is where you explain to ST why recommendations can't be implemented. You say you are unable to accept recommendation because colleagues all share PCs.

You don't refer to DEFRA Gender Identity and Intersex policy (GIIP) do you?
NB - No
HH - a moment please. I'm looking for Gender Identity and Intersex Guidance (GIIG)

HH - Section 7 of GIIG, that says indivs are entitled to beliefs but can't express if causes distress to ppl in workplace. You dont reference it do you?
NB - No

This woman is at a grade where she can hold her own in front of Parliamentary Select Committees. An employment tribunal is a mere bagatelle.

I see we are back to why don't you prioritise the PC of GR over all others...

We see a small section redacted - it would appear she (JH) had taken legal advice.

Well, well. I wonder who that was from? She sought out legal advice from elsewhere?!

Edit typo.