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.

HH - Did you agree with JH findings?
NB - Not wholly.

I sooooo want to hear NB's honest, complete and uninhibited answer to that question.

From TT:

J - you agree then it was JH to reach a determination to reach a gx appeal?
NB - yes
J - were you prepared to allow that go forward as part of appeal? It wasn't overturned?
NB - no
J - what followed from the finding?

NB - a set of recommendations that JH was asking me to consider and implememt
J - in respect of recommendation 2 you refused to implement?
NB - yes

HH - Given those clear findings from JH, I'll pull out a few. "Inadequate protection for trans against harm and distress", "evidence of distress as result of open platform" "lack of moderation if yamer". Now you indicate it was recommendations you had difficulty

So HH is suggesting that the Civil Service HR dept should follow a policy based on a model by a:gender rather than...the law?

Just caught up so this is a throwback, if the GI were posting comments that GC/SEEN were 'hateful' and 'bigoted' it's no wonder moderation was asymmetrical.

I pollinated an amaryllis and another one pollinated itself. I originally had four (with about three offsets growing). If all these seeds germinate, I think I'll have about 120!

HH - Given those clear findings from JH, I'll pull out a few. "Inadequate protection for trans against harm and distress", "evidence of distress as result of open platform" "lack of moderation if yamer". Now you indicate it was recommendations you had difficulty

There has to be a level of 'harm and distress' that is acceptable - otherwise elements of the workforce an claim that anything they don't like is causing 'harm and distress'.

It's a free pass to be everyone's boss

From TT:

implementing.
NB - I note these were her conclusions having heard appeal
HH - You say you dont want to interfere with the findings, why was there no fresh assessment in terms of whether Yammer was operating in line with Defra policies?

NB - I believe there was. When I got JH letter, those decisions and conclusions created a sort of point of reflection and revision. Not least because JH was asking me to consider implementing recommendations

HH - That point we know you didn't take stock and do full equality assessment?
NB - JH didn't recommend I do that
HH - We agree there wasn't one. You say you reflected on recommendations. If we look at second gx report. Look at 1366.

Mr Harman was still saying a year later there were still gaps in policies and procedures to protect trans colleagues. Doesn't that confirm that JH assessment was correct and you should have suspended Yammer and taken full equality assessment?

<personal note - but those pesky lanyards would still be out there terrifying people>

This is all so circular......and it keeps coming back to NB's needs to balance the rights and protections of different groups of employees. That was her role.

HH is making a meal of this cross exam - there are 3 more witnesses for DEFRA/RPA then EDW.

Unless the witnesses are very brief I can see poor EDW having to give evidence at a reconvened hearing months away.

From much earlier:

do you accept this policy makes it unacceptable to call out GC views as hateful, that exactly what it says

This shows how HH's arguments are stuck in 2018 thinking: GC views by definition are utterly beyond the pale and everyone must reject them and also go on the attack if they encounter them.

I'd like there to be more push-back on this, to make it clear to J that his consideration needs to add in 2018 to the present day.

.

Again - was it reasonable for trans people to feel they were being harmed? My daughter feels harmed and distressed in the presence of Eratigena atrica. But I think that house spiders are wonderful and my daughter's distress is unreasonable.

Absolutely. Posting about Reform or immigration or similar contentious topics would make me distressed. I wouldn’t expect to go off sick.

From TT:

HH - her assessment was on the money wasn't it. Karl Harman found beliefs were being expressed that was causing distress to others. That wouldn't have happened if you suspenclded Yammer?
NB - Disagree. We were already seeing potential for

commentary on intranet as opposed to Yammer. Closing down one platform. Fundamentally you will have that discourse happening elsewhere underground rather than visible transparent platforms.

HH - Isn't that what ST said, " in my face when ever I open my computer"
NB - At the time we were already in flight to Viva Engage and could make further improvements.

J - have you ever before decided not to accept recommendations to gx appeal?
NB - yes. It's very rare that

recommendations are made that influence broader policies and practices. Many that we have to negotiate with unions.
J - even then is it unusual ot to accept outcome of a gx, was this unique?
NB - it was exceptional. It's rare recommendations

Is there any more ways HH can ask exactly the same question?

Nigel Farage has quit.

I fear the same. And judge is clearly irritated by the existence of an Intervenor in his case. I doubt he's going to be generous in giving time to NC and her witness.

She shouldn't need a lot of time with NB. They don't disagree on much.

But he’s going to stand again.

And now I’m triggered.

Sorry.

You may be sorry , but I need to go off sick for six months on full pay because of the harm and distress you have caused me!!!

From TT:

like this come out of a gx. Usually an apology, a move, adjustments, hybrid working.
HH - 663, JH here on failure to implement proper moderation. She says these changes to moderation must include properly resourced moderation for CoC to be enforced.

Did u accept that conclusion?
NB - I'm trying to find the bit where I considered the recommendations.
[Finding docs]
NB - I think I partially accepted it.

HH - What you say [reads "unable tobresource a stand alone team"] and what you did was you delegated moderation to group owners?
NB - yes with provision of training and guidelines

In other words: re-emphasised codes and guidelines and left it up to grown-ups to make sure everybody played nice.

I agree that NC may not take long with NB. But it would be very easy for HH to run down the clock with 3 more witnesses from R to go.

From TT:

HH - But re SEEN the group owner and IAO were themselves posting content altrans colleagues found offensive?
NB - Yes
HH - JH had said properly resourced moderation amd instead you delegated responsibility to the very people causing harassment

NB - Not entirely. We did set out different control mechanism that meant grouos managed moderation within. Provided training and route of escalation amd oversight with moderation panel. Not left to groups entirely to be operated independently under own devices

J - what does moderation process mean?
NB - oversight by moderation panel
J - you use careful language. Can you explain what escalation and oversight meant?

NB - escalation meant if group could not reach decision for themselves they can use moderation panel. And oversight means panel can look at their decision making.
J - if they disagreed what would they do
NB - change the decision

Perhaps it would make an easy ground of appeal for SEEN if they weren't given their go to make a proper case as intervenor. Nobody wants to be there, but an EAT can examine the law better and set a precedent.