Thread by @tribunaltweets

This thread will contain the reporting of the second half of the morning session for the case of Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

The session has resumed. Waiting for the Judge to enter

J: please proceed
NC: Morning. I will start with Qs that come out of evidence you gave this morning. You said the decision to have 3 members were on the panel bc MW had been interviewed. Why 3 not 1
MR: I don't know. I guess bc we wanted a balanced view.

We have a certain no of people available
NC: going to the policy, it says the hearing will be held by the chair. that's normal. Is there something that says 2 or 3 in the policy? Who decided it
MR: the chair i believe

NC: needing to coordinate 3 members was responsible for the day
MR: we needed everyone to be available
NC: you needed advice from Worknest. They aren't all lawyers some are HR. Was your advice from a lawyer
MR: a solicitor
[missed]

NC: re the transcript. Why wasn't it sent to a prof transcriber?
MR: I didn't think of it. We were focussed on confidentiality
NC: re the change from Gross Misc to Misc - you said I assumed that she'd read everything and that you thought she'd be upset. You seem to blame RA

MR: not a blame situation. I assumed she hadn't read the letter
NC: why didn't you just tell her that Gross Misc had been dropped
MR: i was following advice
NC: you said re your decision to focus on 2 email RA sent to AB. Did you feed back to NCi and MW that the investigation

was flawed
MR: no
NC: what about at a later stage
MR: we had a convo where we discussed safe spaces but I didn't send feedback
NC: re training. Have you had specific training on implications for employment relations re freedom of expression
MR: no

NC: any training on the Forstater judgement"
MR: No
NC: have you heard of it
MR: I don't know
NC: you need to tell the truth. [Describes the judgement]
MR: No

NC: as chair of disc panel - you needed to make sure it was fairly conducted
MR: yes
NC: you needed to take responsibility for it
MR: we did and we took advice
NC: re: 2 versions of the letter

NC: theres an email from KT - saying that the board will be in contact with you soon. Making contact with the board meant you?
MR: yes
NC: you'd been asked to chair the meeting by MW
MR: on the 2nd
NC: you were aware of the timeline and that she didn't know what was happening

MR: not until the 9th when I got the docs
NC: once you knew timeline, you treated your part in process as urgent
Yes:
NC: there's a redacted email, is that you?
MR: yes

(email was to NCi)
NC: from redacted 12 sept. Another redacted mention is Worknest?
MR: yes
NC: another email from redacted, you?
MR: yes
NC: to Worknest
MR: yes

NC: cc to redacted. Was this MW?
MR: I don't recall. When I contacted NCi re RA address. Got OOO so copied in MW. I don't think I cc'd MW in to emails to Worknest
NC: who else could this have gone to. We know it's gone to Worknest and Nico.

Who else could it have been other than MW
MR: when I was looking at evidence I didn't see the redaction. There could have been the name actually there, I can't remember
NC: you tell RA that you needed a meeting with her and that you would be in touch. That's a holding message?

MR: yes
NC: RA chased up 2 days later, doesn't know what's happening or what the purpose of meeting is. She was stressed after 2 months of waiting. Did you realise that RA needed info
MR: I knew that we needed to conclude this for RA
NC: Urgently
MR: yes

NC: your message to MW on 14/9 in response to MW's contact details. You were expecting to send communication that night.
MR: yes
NC: MW is being kept informed
MR: yes. she sent me RAs info. This was me thanking her. I also asked about room booking bc NCi was on holiday

I was asking her for info. I was just being polite actually. There was a delay in booking the room
NC: There is an identical message on the 18/9. Tell us about this
MR: I don't understand why it is dated on the 14th. I sent it on the 18th.

NC: on the 18th you sent the letter and that is dated 18th. which is when you said you sent it
MR: yes
NC: but the letter was ready on the 12th sept. Can you explain what happened between the 12th and 18th
MR: it was sent to Worknest on the 12th who responded on the 13th

MR: on the 14th I realised that I didn't have RAs details and we didn't have a room booked so I requested the info for that
NC: is that why there was a delay? RAs details and the room. Why not say room to be announced
MR: I could have.

NC: you say getting those admin details were the whole reason for the delay. Nothing else going on?
MR: no
NC: after RA has read the disc invite letter and is facing proceedings and possible sanctions. She asks for info on the allegations for Misc and Gross Misc. You were aware

she feared losing her job
MR: yes
NC: you responded. When were you aware she was off sick?
MR: I rec'd an OOO from RA
NC: on 14th Sept
MR: when I rec'd OOO

NC: you assumed it was bc of the stress of this process
MR: I assumed but didn't know
NC: you sent the reissued letter which removed Gross Misc on 18th
MR: yes
NC: you said that there had been a change of mind when RA queried the change from Gross Misc. How did that happen

MR: we were advised that we were correct but when I got RAs Qs I sought more advice. As a result the charge was changed to Misc
NC: why didn't you stick to your guns
MR: i was tld it was an admin error
NC: that wasn't true. It was a change of mind

MR: the error was not from the ERCC
NC: I suggest it wasn't an admin error. There was a plan to dismiss RA but then there was a loss of nerve
MR: that's not true
NC: It was a major decision. It made a huge diff to RA
MR: yes

NC: shouldn't she have been written to? Should have been told that there was no charge of Gross Misc and we are sorry
MR: we were anxious about it
NC: that was callous, wasn't it?

MR: I was upset. I lost sleep over this. In a disc hearing you need to be fair and to follow procedure and law and to be as fair as poss. I was unhappy at how that had gone
NC: surely apology would be appropriate
MR: I rectified it as soon as I could

NC: in reissued letter - dated 12th Sept. Why the wrong date
MR: bc it was a reissue of the same letter so I kept date
NC: but the letter was dated 18th sept
MR: I assume it's bc that was the letter I rec'd back from Worknest
NC: you didn't check
MR: I can't have done

NC: I believe that there was a tussle between the board. The first letter with Gross Misc was sent, there was disagreement and RA complained so the milder letter was sent
MR: Not true
NC: MW was trying to bring about RA's dismissal
MR: No

NC: MW believes anyone who doesn't agree with MW's view should be fired
MR: No. I have never seen anything that indicates that that is the case
NC: yesterday a young women Nicole Jones appeared and said she had witnessed MW saying firing was as useful as hiring when

creating inclusive spaces. MW was pushing for dismissal
MR: MW made those at a speech. Not in ERCC
NC: how do you feel about them before
MR: Difficult to comment without any context. First time I've heard of this
NC: if you are told that NJ heard MW say "fuck Terfs" what do

you think
MR: it's unfortunate language
NC: it's abusive
MR: not wanting to sound like Harvard but I think it needs context - it's unfortunate language

NC: in disc hearing docs, you say you do not feel that management have given you clear guidance. You understood that at the time
MR: I understood she felt that
NC: you felt it important that RA should be told what she had done wrong. Did you understand that
MR: yes

NC: that isn't found in the invite letter, is it?
MR: No
NC: did you or Niamh spell it out in the meeting
MR: I felt we did. Katie spelled out what instruction had been given
NC: somebody need to say where RA had gone wrong
MR: I felt she was

NC: If that's there in the bundle I'm sure DH will direct you to it in reexamination.
[missed]
MR: we made clear that any staff info or medical history and that the ERCC didn't employ men. If there was any discomfort with any staff member then an alternative would be offered

NC: With those 3 elements - do you think they were made clear to RA?
[Note; no staff info or medical history was to be given out]
MR: I believe that to be the case
NC: KT would know this, wouldn't she
MR: we relied on her interview for that

NC: Service users asked if AB was a man. The instruction for response was to be AB was NB
[missed]
NC: under actions agreed: there is a bit about this response. RA doesn't agree that this is accurate recording. KT needed to check with senior managers re response so it wasn't

resolved
MR: there was a willingness to check so I don't agree that previous instruction should not be followed
NC: you can't say anything about gender or med history, you can say ERCC doesn't employ men and alternative option
MR: KT was going back to check this

NC: on 14/6 RA asked KT and AB for guidance. On 15/6 AB says AB is linking MW into this. RA says from support account and thanks for urgency. KT says she had responded to service user after advice from MW. We see that even KT found she needed guidance from the Chief Exec

MR: I don't know what she took advice from MW
NC: the advice about saying no men came from MW
MR: I can't say for certain. I didn't read that as the first ref in the bundle
NC: It's implausible the KT can have given RA advice on what response to give; leading to disc hearing,

when KT also needed advice
MR: we found no evidence of AB being disingenuous
NC: what about RA
MR: I disagreed with her
NC: what about disingenous
MR: didn't find her disingenous
NC: there's a problem with telling the service user there was no men. This is not true, is it?

MW is male
MR: I believe MW is a women. her passport says she's a woman
NC: are you aware that some people believe that being a woman is to do with your body?
MR: yes

NC: yes MR: are you aware that people knew MW was male, hence the complaint emails which were filed in Hate Mail file
MR: yes
[missed]
NC: if the centre employed a NB person who was as you would say 'assigned male at birth', would you think that the assurance has no men was true

MR: so if a NB was employed and presented as male
NC: if a male identified as NB since before working for the centre, would it be true to say that the centre doesn't employ men?
MR: I don't understand how that would happen so I don't understand the Q.

NC: does a NB person have a sex? Male or female
MR: I would ask advice. I'm not qualified to answer
NC: if you say ERCC doesn't employ men but MW is male, service users won't want to receive help from you. She is going to self-exclude. We share a conception of what that means

MR: our experience doesn't bear that out. We have long waiting lists which we sometimes have to close
NC: If the SU was told by KT that there was no men. This is cruel and unjust and so you should check with line manager
MR: yes, should check

NC: even if you think sex doesn't matter so rape survivors who want to speak to a woman, you think that they should be prepared to speak to a man who thinks he's a woman
MR: SU's should be aware who they are talking to and should be able to ask for diff person.

If they know someone is NB, they can ask the question if they need to
NC: this is not complicated. Lots of people think survivors should be able to be sure that they will be seeing a woman
MR: People do think that but I think survivors should be able to chose a diff person if nec

MR: we shouldn't be able to divulge staff gender or medical history
NC: you're telling the SU what the person identifies as now, not what they were born as.
MR: An SU could ask follow-up Qs and the staff member could then divulge themselves

NC: shouldn't they be able to know beforehand?
MR: They should be able to ask Qs, we don't ask for their reasoning
J: is this a good time to break
NC: yes
J: Back at 2pm please
[Session ends]

@threadreaderapp unroll please