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.

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

Now that is a gem of a sentence, it says so much and in such a mild way.

From TT:

HH - Your justification is all colleagues who share a PC clare entitled to form networks. But its clear JH in her reasoning had rejected that hadn't she. She says the right to gold belief doesn't mean have to provide an open platform

HH - Exchange here between you and JH to discuss recommendations. Some are problematic under the law. JH response says "careful to make sure everything I have said grounded in DEFRA guidance"

She also says she was briefed on relevant caseload. She says there wasn't a legal requirement to provide open platform like Yammer. Did u understand she was talking about manifestation of belief?
NB - Yes

Having observed NB's performance under cross examination, I would say that her witness statement is written in her own voice.

. Did u understand she was talking about manifestation of belief?
Bananarama alert!

It’s in the claimants skeleton on TT substack

You don't refer to DEFRA Gender Identity and Intersex policy (GIIP) do you?
NB - No

You'd think this was the only policy they had to follow listening to HH.

careful to make sure everything I have said grounded in DEFRA guidance

HH NB understands that DEFRA guidance may not follow the law.

DEFRAs guidelines, at that point, had not kept pace with legal rulings.

HH - Exchange here between you and JH to discuss recommendations. Some are problematic under the law. JH response says "careful to make sure everything I have said grounded in DEFRA guidance"

And NB wants to make sure everything follows the actual law!

Hopefully those sessions have a bit more…. pace?

I wonder who wrote the DEFRA Gender Identity and Intersex Policy (GIIP).

Money on it being activists.

So JH took independent legal advice that contradicted the advice given by HR and she issued a grievance outcome based on this independent advice.

This is rogue behaviour. This is not how anyone shld behave at work. If she disagreed with HR she needed to make her own complaint/take it up with her line manager, not act as her own HR dept.

How can this possibly be acceptable?

From TT:

HH - She says she was briefed but you simply saw to overturn her decision because you didn't agree?
NB - I didn't seek to overturn her decision. She provided a set of recommendations to implement.

HH - 663 please. Here she noted DEFRA was making changes as to how Yammer worked. She says while changes are being made if platform isn't working in line with policies it should be suspended until put in
place. Your line was it WAS working in line with policies. You directly contradicted JH?
NB - My position was Yammer was a legitimate platform with the controls we had in place with CoC and Nolan Principles.
J - ask again

HH - JH found that DEFRA wasn't adhering to policies for trans colleagues and should suspend Yammer, your position was it was working which directly contradicted JH findings?

NB - I dont think it contradicts. JH is suggesting we need to make further improvements. Move to Viva Engage was already in flight, which wasn't exclusively driven by practices of Yammer. It was partly digitally driven. Enabled us to further improve controls and risk management

Agender is my bet, and the person with Swyer's syndrome who positioned herself as a trans ally ( forgotten name)

NB - I didn't seek to overturn her decision. She provided a set of recommendations to implement.

Emma Dunn

Has it been confirmed that JH is not an a:gender ally?

I guess that as JH is not giving evidence she will never be asked

From July 2nd, on DEFRA guidance and policy:

"AL also has guidance on GI and intersex,
ED appears to have one
AL didn't AG contribute to this policy
ED it appears to be based on our model policies
AL from 2019
ED yes"

So reliably a policy sung to the tune of Uber Alles. I wonder if we'll get a view of it.

It's fair though, isn't it? JH didn't decide to shut down the yammer thing; she didn't have the authority to do that.

NB is definitely going for two can play at that game!

No adjustment of the yeast, no. I would just put the first lot of water and proved yeast into flour, stir it up, then after adding more flour the second lot of water was replaced with squashed squash😄

and some splattering of salt, vegetable oil and thyme in there too

From TT:

HH - Did you agree with JH findings?
NB - Not wholly.
(Missed)
J - you said you didn't seek to overturn but answer you have just given doesnt sit well with that. Her finding was Defra should NOT provide platform for GC views. You didn't agree with that finding?

NL [Should be AL]- Are you suggesting not agreeing is same as not overturning?
J - let me put again. Do you standby evidence that you were not seeking to overturn findings?
NB - Correct
J - So this says Defra should not provide platform for expressing GC views. Do you agree?

NB - Personally I don't agree but I note that was JH conclusions. My role is different as head of HR, I'm considering issues from broad perspective where as JH is looking at a specific set raised by the employee

JH was only considering the complainant's feelings and their PC, whereas NB has a wider, more inclusive remit.

Now It is NB's turn to be cast as a secret transphobe.