Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Welcome to the afternoon session of Monday 12th Sept 2022, for the case of Bernard Randall vs Trent College. We expect Randall will continue giving evidence. 2pm start. #OpenJustice

Catch up with this morning here:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets2/status/1569241507525267457?t=fXYAjODBg92jXVAAKMvcYg&s=19

Abbreviations:
BR - Bernard Randall

RO - Richard O’Dair, barrister for BR

TC - Trent College

PW - Paul Wilson, barrister for TC

EJ - Employment Judge

Panel - other members of the tribunal

E&C - Educate & Celebrate, providers of diversity and inclusion training to schools

PC - Protected Characteristic

WS - Witness Statement

CofE - Church of England

JH - Jeremy Hallows - TC employee

We begin. (Sound turned off so we've missed the opening, apologies for beginning without context)
PW: when u obvs were put on furlough, cast minds back to march 2020, u find out on Mar 27, u said initially resisted furlough.

PW: u objected to go on furlough and then set out work u were going to do instead of furlough. Here's An email from u and your position and work u proposed.

PW: we can see email from u to Human resources, Morag Deighton (DM). U sent this setting out work. U were doing thoughts for the day. By this stage Chapel couldn't take place because of corvid

BR: when corvid arrived school was suspended. Head said, noone will lose jobs but might ask other duties. Then lost a week and then furlough.
PW: u were doing thought for the day...looking for online office hours, zoom meetings?

BR: yes working out was possible
PW: a virtual prayer space?
BR: yes
PW: on that basis u shouldn't be furloughed and could be useful to school?
BR: yes
PW: point MD (name correction: Morag Dakin) makes here

PW: the result was after the email, u were told u were put on furlough. One line response from MD. Ring a bell?
BR: yes
PW: this email u wrote to Head, in essence, trying to hone in on crux, u say 'there's work I can do...' We can see u felt strongly Chapel should cont

BR: Christian faith provision yes
PW: won't debate that. U give a list of work u might be able to do. Thought for the day. That took form of email to school community?
BR: initially, trying to remember. First week on termtime I sent email then holiday came, compulsory Chapel,

BR: then used Chapel twitter acco7nt and sent 3 tweets a day. Final email in term I said I'm switching to twitter
PW: so ppl could voluntarily follow u?
BR: yes
PW: 'virtual office pastoral support' could only be video or telephone meeting?
BR: yes

PW: creating online prayer resources, creating virtual Chapel? How would that be?
(Missed)
BR: that was to be worked out
PW: other things to be worked out too. Like streaming and resources, virtual chessclub, philosophy club

PW: proposing all that instead of furlough. Email from Head.when we look at email we can see, he pointed out others had been furloughed and needed to do fee reductions. We know its a fee paying school and given gone into lockdown u can understand parents want that.

PW: u wouldn't fault that logic
BR: that some ppl put on furlough is reasonable but question is in CHURCH school with 'end of world is nigh' feelings there's a clear reason why you would want some spiritual support

BR: I think it was a mistake to put me on furlough. There was no faith provision which was odd for a school who's purpose is faith principles

PW: returning to Head's letter. He said he looked at list of jobs that you'd listed and he says he echoed HR and not 'constitutional service'. I can see benefits of what ur proposing but u wouldn't dispute not essential to the school?

BR: I disagree. In a church school to discard church is odd. Doctrines or CofE must be taught.
PW: he said not essential [reads Head's leatter]

PW: u were aware teaching would be going on online?
BR: yes
PW: element of pastoral support? Every class has pastoral tutor?
BR: broadly yes. In a time of crisis I would increase pastoral support rather than decrease

PW: u said idea to keep u furloughed in September 2020... that u found inexplicable
BR: yes
PW: does that mean ur not suggesting initial decision to furlough is discriminatory?
BR: initial decision is odd and discriminatory attitude towards me

BR: when comes to September, school back, assembles, parents told Chapel back yet it wasn't. They just didn't want me around for discriminatory reasons.

PW: u rand about your timetable and Mr Brymby didn't reply. As a result u telephoned MD
BR: she telephoned me
PW: page 1257. Suggest to u telephone call came out of this email.

PW: sequence events, two emails to Mr Brumby then got this letter Aug 27 from MD, that u would remain furloughed and not allocated a timetable. And Chapel services won't be required. 'Reviewing how we deliver chapel'. On back of that letter u telephoned MD
BR: she telephoned me

BR: this letter was posted and I don't think I received of it until after MD called
PW: u got call then the letter
BR: yes pretty certain posted not emailed

PW: when the restructuring process began - go to letter advising u of it at 517. As you go into Sept, ur on furlough and that's cost benefit to school?
BR: yes
PW: the rationale still in place.
BR: the excuse

PW: there's an explanation why they didn't need u to do teaching
BR: why they didn't *want* me to
PW: we'll...if they having teaching resource not furloughed, makes sense to cover in that way?

BR: I was kept on furlough for discriminatory reasons. What they could have done was bring me off furlough and reallocate so I was teaching as contract. Deliberate choice not to. This letter is inaccurate as turns out.

PW: ur not a qualified teacher with right qualifications.
BR: not all staff did.
(Missed)
PW : position here they're reducing Chaplin. Not at this stage redundancy
BR: no (missed) my contract included teaching. Don't know why wasn't asked back other than discriminatory reasons

PW: I'd see teaching subsidiary to Chaplin
BR: teaching is part of it. I get to know them and they get to know me. They see the Chaplin isn't just someone who bangs on about God all the time.

BR: They see me being neutral is religious lessons. They see an intelligent human being and Christian.
PW: teaching isn't main part of your role?
BR: in my contract

[Panel asking BR about qualified teacher status. BR says independent school and not same structure]

PW: other feature of situ is school had to make cost savings. We can see how subjects u were involved in were covered. Makes sense to save cost not to bring u back
BR: one possible approach. Alternatively could have restricted history dept.

PW: u see the logic, there's a logic
BR: based on premise we don't Wang this Chaplin in our school and I think premise is faulty
PW: u didn't believe genuine process, bad faith from beginning?
BR: yes

PW: first consultation meeting [reads about 'restructuring'] JH said redundancy not restructure. He corrected it?
BR: no I did.
PW: in meeting u were presented with job description which was 'cobbled together'. Was agreed during meeting, put to u as proposed?

BR: yes
PW: u could come back to it?
BR: yes
(Couldn't understand PW Q)
RO: can't understand
PW: u could revise job description.

PW: Para 252. I'm jumping ahead, sorry, bear with, main position u were taken with was Chapel being reduced. Its right, forgive me, you, you suggest, [reads from Ws] JH was suggesting how....forgive me...for a minute...lost place...in notes

PW: discussion about chaplaincy needed more time? Top and bottom?
BR: main points I think
Pw: there were things JH couldn't answer.

PW: he got it from school from issues from consultation
BR: yes
PW: page 528 u say [reads 'school consider following'] about inspection
BR: this is the joint Anglican and methodist which specifically faith in a school. Independent of ofsted. I was suggested TC would benefit

PW: [reads] look at answer, explain how it's dishonest.
BR: I don't see inspections suspended leads to school not investigating possibility. lots of info about what is.
PW: this point is an idea for work u could do?
BR: yes

PW: those inspections haven't been suspended?
BR: no...what does (missed)

I thought getting outstanding from national org would be good
PW: (missed)
BR: seems dishonest to me
PW: u make point that ur proposal for chaplaincy was designed to be so unattractive u wd turn it down

BR: JH introduced it as redundancy process which I took to me we know u will aay no to this.
PW: (questions hours)
BR: term time only
PW: oh that's why u get .3. You thought u should give hours of what u thought u could do the job in?
BR: yes

PW: don't think by that stage u had come back with idea of time
BR: prob not
PW: 533 we can see, reflects where things had got to. [Reads] if u were doing Chapel across a week, your 0.2 would be spead across the week?
BR: yes
PW: 7 hours not realistic?
BR: yes

PW: disparity with JH. He said you could write sermons in 15 minutes.
BR: that was a jaw dropping moment.
PW: he said it varies. He had lack of understanding?
BR: I defy anyone to do all that in 15 mins to a decent standard.
PW:u were invited to come back with an estimate of time

PW: page 540. Email 27 Oct. Your proposal to MD, who was acting as postbox to send info to. We can see 2 aspects. Carol service needs 10 hours. Ur proposing paid at hourly rate?
BR: as I recall I was simply saying this is how long this takes. Trying to give sense of how long

These things take.
PW: MD says anything you want to add and u say about hourly rate. I read that as you asking money?
BR: much chaplaincy work is as you go and no room for that. I think Suggestion school could pay me to come in additionally and what would be hourly rate

[PW taking through BR estimates of time for work]
PW: so you need 15 hours a week? You've got upper/senior school and primary
BR: yes proposed I'd do the odd Chapel service

PW: my understanding same theme for each side group
BR: yes until management measures
PW: overlap between one service and another
BR: lower school have something different for senior

PW: when u went into final restructuring meeting, Dec 2, i see u state Carol service needed, elm service, had u done Chapel for those children after reinstatement?
BR: yes
PW: u have weekday services, 16 hours, that was ur proposal per week?

BR: I don't recall if q00% accurate but thats what that was about
PW: can u recall hours asking?
BR,: don't think got to point of saying 'this number' of hours

PW: looks like some sort of agreement with JH. He says he can take it back to Head. Ur asked position and say 10 hours might be possible. We can see no final agreement but on face of it looks u would carry out for 10 hours?
BR: that'd be next stage

PW: you'd argue for more
BR: of course
PW: you'd have come back with more?
BR: I can't know as it didn't arise. Whole lot of discussion could have happened
PW: if redundancy hadn't impinged there have been convo about number of hours?
BR: yes

PW: looks like they were offering to keep on
BR: that's what it was supposed to look like
PW: u believe JH was in bad faith?

BR: that was my feeling. At one point I asked how u hours worked out and said he'd provide and then next meeting he said 'didn't tell u I'd give 7 hours and not going to'
PW: u would be best placed to know how much time to do ur work?
BR: that was point I was making

PW: in your WS u deal with that at page 278+. The sequence events is received 'restructuring' letter from MD. And during course of that process u put in jnformal grievance to chair of school governors, Deborah Evans (DE). You said Head had agenda against you at this stage

BR: not just this stage
PW: was explained school under financial pressure and Head charged with making savings led to chaplain redundant
BR: that was the claim
PW: mode of delivery changed in the school, to do without chaplain
BR: again that was the claim

PW: u asked if anything has changed and JH said school not obliged to have chaplain. You could get CofE to come in now and again
BR: that's what he said
PW: made clear to u chaplaincy wasn't only way to provide faith to students

PW: point 3 and meeting adjourned. [Reads BR query] JH told u covid meant Chapel couldn't be held. Tells u the Chapel not only vehicle to provide faith provision. U say he contradicted himself. He said not only way and could be done without Chaplin.

PW: u obvs didn't agree
BR: no naturally
PW : not unreasonable?
BR: says excellent provision without chaplaincy which is odd claim. Having seen other staff deliver Chapel my opinion is not excellent provision, some good some appalling.

BR: Don't think JH really understood christian CofE faith provision would really mean. I felt it was simply we don't want this chaplain, we'll say anything to get rid of him. Admitted there was no plan and to have no plan but say excellent provision sorry I'm not buying it

PW: not unreasonable though
BR: when I came back, two students came to me, one gay and said 'so pleased to have you back sir, Chapel will be interesting again'. I took that to mean Chapel hadn't been very good.

PW: u bluntly begin ur grievance and say [reads] So u were being expressly pointing to Head's involvement?
BR: buck stops with head
PW: did u suspect governors weren't kept abreast of what was going on?
BR: yes prob a concern

PW: can see u raising faith concerns about not having chaplain. This is after ur dismissal. U can see Mr Penti (Head) had put into this matter, with this side note
BR: yes
OW: u knew comment by Head?
BR: yes
PW: coming back to letter and point by DE - Chapel not only thing

affected by corvid. U weren't only one. She says when children return there'll be bubble principle with teachers moving around. That still meant through 2020 still restrictions for physical Chapel.

BR: assemblies were taking place virtually as could have Chapel if it'd been so designed
PW: u did trust DE didn't u?
BR: erm I think I was prob entirely neutral.
PW: she then gives u explanation about disruption to school finances

PW: she Refs nin recruitment over international borders, reducing school income
BR: yes
PW: she says furlough scheme helped but school had hole in finances. Ur getting answer making savings
BR: I was but then Religious studies dept had had an increase day before

PW: just b/c increase doesn't mean no overheads
BR: shoes freedom *missed)
PW: you're told need to make saving
BR: doesn't say whm meeting was. My understanding is that was Oct and not in between restructuring meeting and redundancy following day.

BR: Weird decision made in middle of aoct and not communicated with DM and JH, can't explain that, why didn't they communicate it. Doesn't explain 24 hour restructuring to redundancy. PW: now you've looked at all papers, it's clear chaplaincy wasn't only depth making cutbacks

BR: I think kmly dept where kmlh memebr of staff was being removed and chaplaincy instead like other debts. Ti remove something you're required to have by own bible's is of totally different time 'we need to reduce PE dept'

PW: school not required to have chaplaincy
BR: required to have instruction from CofE. There was no evidence a plan. It felt to me, and Mr Butler, no real desire to have me back and process set up to remove me. Sham process

[PW taking through staff deletions including teaching assistants and chefs]

PW: suggesting that pattern of redundancies, the chaplaincy formed part of that general process. Trying to make cost savings

BR: think it's odd these are all in June and July and nothing done with me til October. Then restructuring turns to redundancy. Something else is going on there. Looks like they sat down in Sept and thought oh dear he's coming back

PW: reasin given for redundancy was that school would 'deliver strong Christian ethos from different model'.
BR: never felt convincing as never a plan. Don't make changes without plan. Page 1233 - covering letter to PowerPoint presentation. [Reads]

BR: [reads 'only doing his job'] that looks to me that someone who has recognised I was in the right and that in light of that want to change wthos of school...I'd contend that's victimisation on monumental scale. Well change ethos of school NOT to have this man back

PW: she says [reads 'pre pandemic modernisation'] looks like ref to PowerPoint. Slides give an overview of survey or staff and pupils
BR: yes

PW: she's not hiding the point [reads]. I suggest what it appears to show is back in June 2020 the governors of school were looking at different faith provision
BR: and reason being victimisation
PW: not at all

BR: I prepared a paper and it wasn't used
PW: are u saying parts of this have been taken from you?
BR: parts yes
PW: fair to say you, how can I put this, ur perspective of chaplaincy is very much erm, one which would follow doctrine of CofE?
BR: that's the schools ethos so yes

PW: [reads] not an expert litagy means words written for services
BR: services in their entirety. Formal worship is litagy
PW: [reads] it rather suggests a rather academic approach to whole prosepct of chaplaincy services
BR: not sure what u mean
PW: given ur a chaplian in school

BR: a CofE school
(Missed)
PW: when we're u asked to write the paper?
BR:... Feb 202..ish
PW: for what purpose?
BR: discussion about schools position arising out of management measures and I said what is faith position if not this

(missed)
PW: have to suggest criticism of chaplaincy service. First slide says 'majority enjoy Chapel, children want more child friendly bible stories.

BR: u can make a survey and get any result you want. It might be I'd have suggested this or that question isn't right. I'd suggest not we'll designed
PW: it says more other faith stories. Sounds like you'd be against that
BR: not qualified. (Missed)

PW: some criticism from children, such as reduce Christian bias, that'd be difficult for you
BR: yes...in contect of CofE school it's odd
PW: view here that pupils say too bible focused. Suggests hits the mark in terms of service in June
BR: don't know how many said that

BR: a way to get rid of chaplaincy PW: you distrust it?
BR: you can see why I might be
PW: u can see narrow focus, pupils totally disengage. You drew attention to this document and u say you've been victimised.

PW: I suggest what it shows is the way u provided chaplain, the school needed to look at and wasn't as good as should be
BR: I worry this process was set up for this

PW: last slide could be management proposal, 10 hours a week and that's 23 June that presentation emailed across. Going back to DE letter, she says BoG is on board with this. Like it or not, provision of faith could be provided in another way and that's what happened here.

BR: ten hours comes from turning up to do sermons without regard for anything else chaplain does. [Reads] the governors didn't actually discuss this, does not not reflect staye of affairs.
PW: wrong conclusion. That anything kept from governors can't be right

BR: says there wasn't time to explore slides at the meeting. I suspect faith provision of faith school should ONLY br discussed by BoG not here's an email, here's some slides, here's what we're going to do.

PW: no further questions
EJ: how much for rexamination
RO: one or two
EJ: quick break to discuss how many questions we have and as to whether we can come back tomorrow or carry on today.

Back 4.05

We are back.

We do not have sound currently. We have asked the court to resume sound.

RO: what was ur full time salary previously?
BR: 42 thousand
(RO sound is unclear)
RO: what would .3 be over a year
BR: 12 thousand I guess?
RI: what impact in ur finances?
BR: catastrophic
RO: re E&C. U saw Ellie Barnes in action. Impression of her?
BR: strangely impressed

BR: knew what she was trying to achieve. Revivalist preacher, building u up, a high incitement now we have this wonderful thing, start from against bullying which noone would disagree with, up to smash heteronormativity

EJ: no question about this
RO: discussion between EB about OC
EJ: We've heard alot about that but not prior meeting. Pw any views?
PW: BR formed view she was lying
EJ: if u can take us to where BR addresses prev contact I WS which has bearing
RO: para 24

EJ: are u putting he met EB before?
RO: asking what media he gained access to EB. I'll withdraw but disappointed no latitude on that
EJ: if you can tell me then that's fine
RO: withdraw it and entitled to
EJ: entitled to tell it to. If About re-examination that's fine

RO: look at para 24 of WS. In that para you said u went to E&C website
BR: yes
RO: what struck u most?
BR: insecurity of what was presented. Hard to find what really about. A bit of digging I found section about smashing heteronormativity - veh clear key eature of whole prog

BH: if I looked at whole website wouldn't have seen that. A book EB co authored about bringing disorder and reviews on amazon about smashing heteronormativity.
EJ: respondent denies
RO: it was in this classroom
EJ:not arisen in cross examination. If I'm wrong point to info to me

EJ: check your notes
PW: can't seem basis to proceed
RO: 4 days of notes
EJ: take a moment to reflect and search notes
RO: ultimately up to you. Simply not realistic to search 3 days of notes.
EJ: u have people taking notes

RO: at the end of the day I'm bound by your judgement.
(Pause)
EJ: that concludes your evidence. No longer under oath BR
PW: Mr Hallows tomorrow morning yes
EJ: thank you everyone, see you tomorrow

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp pls unroll

Typo correction
*very clear key feature of whole programme

Typo correction
*we don't want this chaplain