Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good Morning & welcome to DAY 10, (Wednesday 21st Sept) of Bernard Randell v Trent College.

10am start.

Catch up with yesterday and the rest of the case here:

archive.ph/n6TR4

#OpenJustice

After a schedule change requested by the Judge, today we expect William Penty, Head of Trent College, to conclude giving evidence, followed by Deborah Evans, Chair of Board of Govenors and Neil Finlay, a governor - both also concluding today.

Abbrevs:
BR - Bernard Randall

TC - Trent College

RO - Richard O’Dair, barrister for BR

PW - Paul Wilson, barrister for TC

EJ - Employment Judge

Panel - other members of the tribunal

E&C - Educate & Celebrate, providers of diversity & inclusion training to schools, also an ‘awards scheme’ for participating schools.

PC - Protected Characteristic

WS - Witness Statement

C - Claimant

D - Defendant

CofE - Chuch of England
JH - Jeremy Hallows - TC
MD - Morag Dakin - TC
EB - Ellie Barnes - E&C employee
JR - Justine Rimington - TC
CK - Chris Kelly, TC
FP - Faith Potter, head of the Elms, the junior school affiliated with TC
WP - W J Penty - Head of TC

DE - Deborah Evans, Chair of Board of Governors Jan 2020 to date

NF - Neil Finlay, Governor

DB - Darren Brumby, Deputy Head Academic

BoG - Board of Govenors

We begin.
EJ: Morning everyone, take a seat.
RO: Morning Mr Penty. Going to talk about spreadsheets and budgets but before one Q: fair to say in ur outcome letter you were critical of C's attitude to E&C?

WP: don't remember wording bit happy with that
RO: if anyone else had made similar criticism wld u react same way?
WP: had issues with BR and E&C and how took it to pupils
RO: you'd take same attitude if someone had different beliefs?

WP: if they had they generated same controversy, I'd have taken seriously
RO: need to be sure of chronology of redundancy. Go to 1231. This doc announces restructuring in June
WP: start of it yes

RO: now look at 610. Now what we have here is finance docs.
WP: yes I will call them that but they're extracts
RO: right that the last Gov meeting occurs in October 2020?
WP: not correct
RO: look at this. 611

RO: we see that there is a extract of agenda item containing difficult financial forecast. Point is its dated Oct 8
WP: not first time we'd looked at financial situ. I can take you to...
WP: we don't need that. You've said quite a lot already.

RO: this is another fincial doc. Right that this doc is also referred to Oct 8
WP: yes but drawing on all kinds of discussion. Clearly minuted if u gave me opp to do it. We had meetings in corona virus about fees and staff pay increase.

WP: 0% fee increase to parents. I view this page as synthethis of long agonising and worrying discussion between me, FP and governing body. I know OW u don't want me to go on at length. Please can I take u there
RO: Judge witness had ample time yesterday

EJ: don't need to go into masses of detail
WP: it explains. Let me guide u through
RO: this isnt fair. Had ample time
WP: I didn't
EJ: We went to this yesterday

WP: this captures it in detail. Shouldn't gloss over. This is why I chose redundancy. Happy in interest of brevity to focus on this doc
(Pause)
EJ: figures?
Rao: only Q I asked was date
WP: can I take u to one line
EJ: yes
Wap: additional salary savings.

WP: (explains moving money around the budget) and that's us trying to start to address what was becoming shortfall in finances due to corona virus. We weren't able to meet loans, etc. We were trying to pull it back up to 700K, Part of that was restructures and part was chaplain

RO: thought witness was taking us to 1.9
WP: OK...
RO: you've pointed it out.
EJ: yes
WP: ask u to look at minutes on 611...
EJ: we'll regard it in deliberations
WP: ..this was direction to me as a head...that was the clear direction to me we need to address gap in huge shortfall

Rao: go back to Q I asked. U agree that this doc is dated Oct 8?
WP: agree
RO: on very next day, there was first consultation meeting about restricting C's job
WP: yes still ongoing. At that moment we were considering restructuring to help finacial situ

RO: 1276. This is an email from u on 16th Oct and can see u are taking interest in restructuring C's job?
WP: still hadn't made decision. I can tell you...
RO: wait til we get there. Its right that the burger wld have been fully aware of the schools position
WP: 200%

RO: serious issue?
Wap: yes
RO: Steve Burnham? (SB)
WP: yes
RO: email from SB to MD
WP: I hadn't spoken about redundancy
RO: we know there'd been second consultation meeting
WP: and I'd decided by that point
RO: we can see 19th Oct an email

RO: page 534. And 3 days later on 19th we see email from JH to u, among others
WP: yes accept
RO: at this stage u were involved in the approval of job description?
WP: yes. Stage of restructuring

RO: as I see it what ur sayingbis everything was going smoothly towards restructuring and included Nov 2?
WP: it was me thinking heavily from Oct 8, shocking finances, all things going on in my mind. On Nov 1 we went into another lock down. Also happening was half term

WP: I went away and really thought, we came back to news saying another lock down and extend job renting scheme, major restrictions, no clear light at end of tunnel. I rang colleagues, mentioned in WS, cailught up with other heads about chaplaincy and Faith provision.

More than one said moved to model without chaplain. Reported positively. Wasnt public with decision of redundancy because I was thinking about it all. Couldn't see it getting better quickly, going to lock down, discussed how we approached faith,

was under clear instructions to consider further savings. Squeezed towel pretty dry already. Few areas left u could go to. Was in office with SB saying we had change of plan. That is my explanation and that is true

RO: u don't mention SB in WS?
WP: no
RO: important to evidence?
WP: have meeting every week with SB.

(Missed)
RO: u could have asked him to give evidence?
WP: (sighs) if u feel its that important I'm sure...didn't feel need

RO: you say u came back on 1st with decision but didn't tell JH doing consultation?
WP: it had already started
RO: u say u communicated the decision and reaso to MD?
WP: honestly genuinely can't remember
RO: stands to reason u would have explained change of course

WP: would have done. Certainly explained to JH and burser my thinking. I'm head and allowed to make unilateral decisions. I took what felt to be really difficult decision. I say in WS but position I felt I had to take given everything I've explained

RO: sure. So MD would have known?
WP: at some point
EJ: just check dates. U said yesterday 1st?
WP: whichever the Monday was
EJ: yes Monday 2nd
WP: I apologise
RO: turn to para 35 in MD WS

RO: [reads WS 'no immediate need for chaplain] u were looking at faith provision
WP: no mention of that
RO: it makes clear ur account is not true
WP: disagree. Ask MD
RO: ur saying week leading up to Nov 2 you became aware of serious financial situation?
WP: already aware

WP: more aware because lockdown
RO: that's historical fact. Right u weren't furloughing staff with teaching qualifications?
WP: teaching wouldn't take place if we didn't
RO: therefore if C had teaching he wouldn't be made redundant

WP: we had no teaching to give him. DB will pick up that
RO: u don't say is WS having thought about matters over half term u looked for savings in variety of ways?
WP: can assure my thinkingvwas in those areas
RO: in evidence ur thinking led to redundancy for C
WP: no other areas

WP: under strict instructions not to spend. Tried to close gap in budget SB was predicting without taking action
RO: worked out fraction job for C would be 4K?
Wap: yes
RO: making C redundant made no financial contribution
Wap: didn't make any

Rao: established genesis of restructure which led to redundancy was that governors meeting with slides?
Wap: accept part of it
Rao: go back to that 1233. A Q: the financial difficulties were arising by June?
WP: yes. Given considerations to redundancy yes. Documented

WP: I think it's telling we didn't go for BR role at that time.
RO: 1233. Its right that the proposal in last slide makes no ref to financial difficulties?
WP: no it doesnt
RO: bc what drove restructure and redundancy was not finances?

WP: certainly part of it. short on time I know but in pack
RO: u said part?
WP many factors
RO: one factor was ur unease about beliefs of marriage and gender in chapel service?
WP: not documented anywhere

RO: another reason was that school was unhappy he'd brought discrimination case?
WP: no he had the right to do it
RO: just want to review the last part of examination.

(Pause)

RO: those are my questions
Panel: can u run me through teaching qualifications in school
WP: not a requirement, preference for it but even if not qualified they must have all regard to teaching standards.

Panel: how long ur teaching career?
WP: started in 1991
Panel: dealt with similar difficulties
WP: every school has had chaplain. Never known in my time, bearing in mind landscape has changed. Never known these matters brought up in public way by chaplain

EJ: one question. Forgive if already addressed. What to be clear schools ethos. Tell me what is the schools ethos?
WP: ethos I ref a few time. I can quote, we attach highest priority of academic outcomes for pupils. Holistic edu, sport music and drama

WP: at same time attaching greatest emphasis on greatest possible pastoral care enabling every pupil to flourish in changing world. At our core of TC. And I'm prepared to accept Christian ethos which is different but I think that's general in my mind.

About positive Christian virtues. Never understood evangelical and protestant as being part of it.
EJ: any points PW?
PW: about ethos, go to staff room guide at 249.

PW: common room quick guide where u can see there is 'our ethos'. Wanted to ask if accurate? At the time in 2019-20?
WP: that's our ethos statement and this is 2017, mentioned earlier in 3016 I spoke to all staff about strategy about ethos. Explored statement and agreed it.

[*2016 not 3016]
Didn't change partic. Sits on website and widely published
EJ: wording is same
WP: exactly it

PW: 610. Does this help u to answer question re suggestion about no consideration about financial aspect?
WP: yes same meeting. Faith provision separate agenda. I'll read through quietly to myself. I can see were short here for financial year

PW: that's the second. I'm looking at 22nd
WP: wrong page sorry. [Reads at length] well you can read it for yourself...

WP: I'll let u read that as well [reads at length] thank u I knew it was in there somewhere. Same meeting with the slides
PW: final point. Cast ur mind back to Friday about numbers of teachers present in 1st and 2nd chapel service. Want to Clarify that.

PW: u able to say how many teachers present?
WP: yes almost to accurate figure. Don't require teachers attend chapel but tutors do. Let's assume all do [explains tutor groups and numbers, head of year,] possibly 12/13
PW: and then the 2nd sermon?
WP: more

WP: [explains tutor groups, head if year] so I'd say mid 20s staff. 25-30
PW: years 9 and 10 - 23 teachers. Then year 12 - 35 teachers
WP: yes not all will have been there but most. Likely around 30 ppl. Max 35.

PW: thanks. Those are my questions
EJ: evidence concluded WP, you are released.
PW: next witness is DE, take a break?
EJ: is DE super quick?
RO: no
EJ: just come back [time wasn't heard but we estimate 11.15]

[Court adjourned]

We expect to be back in about five minutes. We will be hearing from Deborah Evans (DE), who has been Chair of Board of Governors at TC since Jan 2020.

Resuming now, DE is reading her oath.

asked to check personal details and witness statement (WS), and has she read recently. She has and all seems in order.

DO- you would agree that it is to the complaint we must look to to understand the case?
DE- yes
DO- this is a complaint to the head (reads from BR complaint at having no teaching, has raised w 2 names individuals who hadn't got back to him - incl head)
DE- yes

(not head. brumby & dakin)

DE- I spoke to WP
DO- trouble is, C says he was kept out of the classroom for other reasons, ie beliefs on marriage. this is quite clear
DE- that is how he sees it, yes.
DO- so this needed to be addressed

DE- he said these factor had contributed to the decision to make him redundant, I did not see this as a complaint of discrimination
DO- complaint related mainly to the head teacher, and this means you should have spoken to at lest another couple of people, the head isn't

just going to say 'yes I did this'
DE- this was an informal complaint and I dealt with it informally. This is not an unusual way to deal w inf complaints, but it was an unusual time (covid)

DO- so it is normal w you have a complaint to talk to the person who is the subject of the complaint to ask if they agree?
DE- it would be different if formal, or a complaint about bullying.

discussing faith provision in contemporary school
DO- do you think that the claimant's views on religion do not fit with this vision?
DE- (unclear and quiet. sounds like DE saying she has not been gov of a CofE school before)

DO- (looking at another doc) is it true that staff who had teaching were not fuloughed
DE (very quiet again, essentially saying it is more complex)

DO- redundancy decisions made by head, not Board of Governors? (BoG)

DO- look at para 12. reference to redundancy policy
DE- yes I looked at this before talking to the head
DO- is it right that you had not prepared q's about complaint before meeting w head
DE- it is important that these are looked at in a holidtic way
DO- but you didn't go

through this systematically with the head? You didn't make notes on this meeting
DE- it was an informal complaint, dealt with informally
DO- so you challenged the head on these accusation od discrimination?
DE- I would have done

DO (reading) here the two people are named, you say that you think transparency is important, can you have transparency w/o talking to the people involved?

DO-it is right that in your letter you did not address the fact of his discrimination
DE- i did not see that this had happened
DO- can we just go to your letter (p552)

DO and look at 552, we see a ref to 'pre-pandemic'; govs raised q's on faith and ethos. It is right that this demonstrates that the school has a christian ethos
DE-yes
DO- and it is roght that Govs want to modernise that Ch. ethos
DE- we wanted to modernise the delivery of faith

and you are talking here about a 'sad loss'; that is the redundancy of the claimant
DE that is the loss of the position of school chaplain

The next witness is taking the stand. Neil Finlay (NF) and has taken oath. DO checking WS and details are correct.

DO- i am checking background details, You were a head of a high school before. IT is right that you would be well versed in matters of HR and matters of equality
NF- yes
DO- and so you know that if an eployee makes a complaint that this should be looked into
NF i don't know

what you mean
DO- if, in a disciplinary, an accusation was made about discrimination, say on gender or race, that would be an important aspect of the investigation
NF q about whether hypothetical. no detail.

DO- and you have read the compliant very carefully
NF- yes
DO- new page. this is a summary of meeting w DF, to where BR says 'what if there had been a complaint from Christian staff and students?' Now it was - is - abundantly clear that the C was raising a complaint about

discrimination on the basis of belief
NF- I can see that he is rasing a hypothetical Q, but doesn't say discrimination
DO- look at this bit, where it says BR is visibly upset and says he thought he would be protected from discrimination but hasn't been. That is very clear that he

feels her has been discriminated against
NF- it all will have been taken into account

NF- unclear and mumbled, but q'ing that the right place to raise the issues was not chapel
DO- if that is so, wouldn't it have been better to say that? perhaps in a letter?
NF- not necessarily

DO - it is fair to say that the point of this investiagtion was to support the head to say that C guilty of gross misconduct
NF- no

DO- here the C says he is not culpable for the contents of his sermon, and gives evidence here, He was arguing for complete exoneration on the ground of his very detailed appeal
NF- will have to read
(quiet for a time) can you show me where this is?
EJ reads aloud

NF- appears to agree
DO- let's go to the final letter,. You say that you have taken all of this into account. IT is fair to say that in your letter, all you have done is say that you have taken all of this into account.
NF- yes
DO- and you do not explain what any of it

means or why the decision is made
NF- we do say that content of sermon not appropriate
DO- let's go to your WS, where you say you laregly agree w the decision made
NF- by the head, yes

DO- go to statement by Fenton. 'neil and i were delighted to be able to help, and support you taking the stance that you did. So your role in the process was to support the school?
NF- no i was there to be objective
DO- she then goes on to say (unclear about lack of evidence),

which is a position you both hold, and is inconsistent with your WS which says you had overwhelming evidence
NF- I did not write that letter, but there was the thought that if he (C) had been properly managed earlier on then this would not have happened.

DO- but that is not related to the amount of evidence
NF it is because we say if managed this could have been avoided.
DO- but there is no reference to this
NF (checks doc) no, we did not say this
Ultimately we have not upheld the head's decision to dismiss

DO- you have not put this in a letter from three years ago, but claim all this time later exactly what you said
NF- did not uphold head's decision which I remember. I thought that not being dismissed would be good news, but still a written warning.

DO- it is right that you took considerable care when expressing this
NF Rev Fenty write that letter
DO- but you saw it?
NF- yes
DO- read this 'you did cause offence by the content of your sermon' and this re the sermon in 2019
NF- yes

DO- and it was the content involving sex and gender that you took offence to
NF- I was not offended
DO- but they were the issues?
NF- yes (some unclear) that was where the offence was caused.

DO - (WS) - so were are clear, this WS was made in the summer of 2022
and you said that you feel very strongly that if these issues were to be raised in school, it should be in a format which is more amenable to discussion & explantion. This has been added, it was not in the

letter to BR but you say you remember years later
NF- it was not in the letter
DO- you say you wanted to keep the letter simple and straightforward, which is why you mention the content of the sermon
NF- the sermon did cause offence. Not to me, but to some in the congregation

DO- it sound like you were talking about members of staff
NF- no, students
DO- but staff as well?
NF- yes
DO- and would you expect that in an ethos of plurality of views, that some people are going to hear thing they don't agree with

NF- yes but should be opportunity to discuss. also vulnerable children
DO- if you were concerned about vulnerable children you should have said so. You say this in defence of the institution

DO refers to upholding the school's ethos. It is right that this ethos includes tolerance for LBGT
NF yes
Do it is right that were can take from the repeated refs to school ethos, that getting the C to comply w school's ethos, whatever that is, was very important

NF- we did not want children to be offended in sermons.i take you to a point I made(finding doc p416, appeal)

NF- the point I am trying to make here is trying to avoid offence in the first place. Another point on subj of ethos 'we need a decision, and that needs to be made, and we need to use that to see if the C is in the wrong'
DO- your view is that whatever C's belief,

he needs to abide by the decision made
NF- in the context let's turn this round. if the person goes to the head and asks opinion first, then we can all agree

DO- let's talk about fundamental british values, which includes mutual tolerance. This included LGBT people respecting the rights of others,
NF- that is all students
DO- answer the q. that includes LGBT students
NF- yes, we aim for tolerance for all people

DO- your WS, your answer to the discrimination point see?
NF- yes am reading
DO- you knew that the claimant was saying that if he was preaching about liberal views, then he would not be in trouble, even if christians were upset
NF- it was our view that the head

did not have any problem w the C's beliefs, it was the manner of them being presented.
DO- you say that, but the C is very clear that he was saying that he would not be in this position if he were talking about liberal views. You can see this as an experienced head

NF- Hypothetically, if this did happen, and a complaint was made, I would have to take that on board and may have come to same decision
DO- so if DH gave a speech at assembly praising gay marriage that would be problematic too?
NF- if it caused offence
EJ- the issue is the offen

offence, not the content?
NF- yes

DO - ref p442. We see the measures set out there. Is it your view that the compilation of this was solely the work of the panel?

NF- it was with protecting the claimant in mind
DO- as long as he does exactly what he's told
NF-yes.

There is some unclear discussion on 'work' the school needs to do
DO- you understand this to mean the liberalisation of the school's christian views
NF- (unclear)
DO- but the focus of it was on C's views on marriage and birth sex
NF- I don't know how to answer that question

NF- I hoped to make things clearer

DO- and the head teacher has signed off that the C cannot deliver sermons on any topic, no matter how far removed from controv. issues
Can you see that it may be humiliating for a chaplain to have to have his sermons signed off for approval by a non clergy member
NF-no / idk

DO- it is undermining though, isn't it? Getting everything approved
NF- I think it's good.
DO- look at these other measures. The C is not allowed to broach any topic that may be seem to be controversial, at any point around school.
NF- not broach, so not bring up

DO- but what if somebody else brings it up? What if he is in the staffroom and there is a conversation in which somebody feels offended. He is then in breach of his written final warning. That's not fair is it?
NF- i can't answer w/o knowing what these topics would be

DO- think about the hypothetical situ in staff room, in which he does not realise that someone who has taken offence. He is living in school, because of your measures, with the burden of knowing that he could be dismissed at any point.

DO- two bullets down - the requested topics in chapel suggestion box must be approved
Let's think about those children. they have a right to hear, receive and discuss ideas, even on controversial topics
NF-yes

DO- but the consequence of this measure is that you are denying students this, and in fact the topics that children themselves are requesting
NF- may be better discussed elsewhere, eh PHSE

explanation of suggestion box for chapel topics. Some of this is unclear, apologies for anything missed

Court breaks for lunch, return at 2pm

@threadreaderapp roll up please :)