Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon & welcome to DAY 10, of Bernard Randell v Trent College. We expect Neil Finlay, a governor, to continue giving evidence, followed by Deborah Evans, Chair of Board of Governors.

2PM start

Catch up with this morning here:
archive.ph/CkCM6

#OpenJustice

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 Master of TC

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

NF - Neil Finlay, Governor

DB - Darren Brumby, Deputy Head Academic

The court was due to begin at 2pm but there is no sign of movement in the room. We will resume coverage when it begins. Stay tuned.

While we wait, a reminder to subscribe to our substack coverage of all our cases:

tribunaltweets.substack.com

We begin.

RO: I want to take you to the details of C's appeal, starting page 402 then forward to para 70. [Reads 'subject not discussed at hearing'] fair criticism of hearing?
NF: is that a question?
RO: yes

RO: also true in hearing it wasn't put to C what he'd done had caused risk to rep?
NF: ample opportunity for C to
RO: C should have raised?
NF: didn't say that. Said ample opp

RO: right to say school was....my chair
EJ: do u want to sort it
RO: yes disconcerting (sorts chair) never happened to me that. All right. Isn't it right schools concerns was bystanders might think school wasn't sufficiently protecting LGBT rights?

NF: not entirely sure. Not forefront of my mind. More about offence caused to erm students
RO: focusing on rep, u were worried 3rd parties would be upset?
NF: part of it. Was concerned if I'd been a bystander I'd have thought

*missed)
NF: students may not be able to understand (can't hear NF well)
RO: it's right on exiting chapel wld have access to staff to who cld express concerns
NF: not right. Wouldn't take that position u can express just bc ppl can talk to someone. Doesn't sit well with me

RO: free speech has to be looked at holistically and pupils can talk if they want
NF: absolutely agree with free speech but schools have to manage

RO: want to look at doc. Its agreed between parties that this doc qas sent in as a supplement to full details of appeal against dismissal. Do u recall it?
NF: yes I think so. Mention of ACAS
RO: para 77. ACAS code of practice about notifying employee [reads]

RO: did u not think that para was significantly breached by failure to tell C that rep was an issue?
NF: no we didn't. We felt there were...we wanted to give C opp to bring up matter er er, to present

RO: may be at the end. Be patient for a min. Check my notes. (Checks) Just one matter about bullet points. Want to make sure I've understood aspects of them. You say you did cause offence due to sermon, then you ignored prev warning re sermons. They go together.

RO: right?
NF: I see as separate
RO: u say there that there were prev warnings but you l'd agree there's no formal warnings?
NF: yes agree. Situ not been sufficiently formally managed
RO: so u agree
Nf: no formal warnings yes

RO: I want to focus on your use of the word 'warning'. Go to 310. This is the email sent by JH to C. Fair to say that the dic cannot be described as a warning?

NF: I think it is. Its warning off. I read that as...look Bernard I've warned u against doing this. I completely accept ur point not formal but reads as one
RO: so be it. No further questions

Panel: when letter went out did C come back to u?
NF: no idea
Panel: miss fenton?
NF: can't say, probs copied in
EJ: no questions. Any reexamine?
PW: yes. Point suggested that wasn't true the Panel took account if fact BR hadn't been formally managed. Sorry if elaborate

PW: u were taken to ur decision letter and was put that it wasn't in writing. Sorry if badly put. Things letter from Head to Nicky Fenton (NF). Let's cut to chase. Read para [NF reads]. Do u agree?
NF: yes. We had convo with MD
PW: my only point of reexamine
(EJ releases witness)

PW: Next witness is Darren Brumby (DB)
(EJ swears in DB. PW takes DB through his WS, confirming his signature and that it's contents are true account. DB confirms one error)
DB: (takes to page) I was asked actually by SB at the time

(PW takes DB through same process for WS 2, from May this year. DB confirms)

RO: want to ask context question. U had training in how grievances should be dealt with?
DB: support from HR, HRC do a program, Part of training on generic employment

RO: can u answer
DB: if q is have I sat on training program, yes
RO: when u heard of this grievance u had assistanceof school HR
RO: also Equal Opportunity (EO) training?
DB: yes
RO: u understand discrimination?
DB: yes
RO: school should tackle discrimination?
DB: yes

RO: go to 450. U obvs read this doc carefully ?
DB: yes
RO: we see concern of direct discrimination [reads]. Though discrimination law is xomplicated, the basis of what C is saying clear. If he'd been clear he wouldn't have been treated like that?
DB: yes that's his grievance

RO: u set out ur conclusions in para 8 of WS. [Reads] in my view there was no evidence of discrimination. Fair to say u don't grapple with idea he'd been treated differently being more Liberal?
DB: not grappling in WS no
RO: u couldn't see a way put that's why u ignored?
DB: no

RO: [reads from WS 'no evidence JR harassed or caused trouble to C'] surely with benefit of MD advice, harassment doesn't have to be intentionally
DB: yes
RO: no excuse for applying wrong def of harassment?
DB: def is dictionary def

DB: the grievance as whole is on grounds of discrimination. Thought harassment was harassment bc of religion of C.
RO: it's right, we all agree, that fundamental British values requires ppl to tolerate views of those they disagree with
DB: don't disagree

RO: no explicit evidence JH and JR taking trouble to tolerate views of C they disagreed with?
DB: ask again
(RO asks again)
DB: think they did tolerate it

RO: you speak of upset caused by the sermons. Take u to page 468. This is one of the interviews conducted by Mr Abrahams and another employee uncomfortable being named.

RO: [reads] looking at that, it's clear to put at highest, evidence of upset was mixed. Fair?
DB: actually no when I looked at this one in itself. Made me feel in some ways they'd highlighted crux of prob.

Didnt hang on every word chaplain said. Not really listening. Them realised ppl are upset and highlights crux. This is an educator. In same sermon there'd have been children not listening to every word, too complex and wld have picked out bits and realised friends were upset.

RO: he says no commotion and noone gave strong opinion at the end? Even if tuned out he gave his observations?
DB: yes said he didn't feel any commotion. Does go on to say 'noone is as horrified as lady on his left'

RO: I'll just take u to sub para D. U say in ur view JH made it clear all belief equal worth. Its right that encouragement of inclusion is a setting out of schools ethos?
DB: sorry ask again

RO: it's correct that inclusion and acceptance are part of that ethos?
DB: don't think stated per se bit wld be odd school if not.
RO: when come across ref to inclusion, one thing is inclusion if LGBT group and those exploring gender?
DB: anyone

RO: that's it for WS 1 as he has 2 WS's.

RO: the allocation of staff?
DB: this will be a long answer. Number of things that drive...starts from options process. (Sound low)
RO: that's helpful
EJ: timetabling before Easter
DB: in ideal world

RO: it's not in dispute that when term began 2019, the C was dismissed
DB: yes
EJ: sonu had done time table by then
DB: yes
RO: he was originally allocated teaching then dismissed so removed from timetable?
(Couldn't hear answer)

RO: while may have true for first half of term, would be possible for u to reinstate him?
DB: yes
RO: but u didn't
DB: no
RO: reason bc of his beliefs the C was an unpopular figure in school. Right?
DB: don't agree

RO: u don't say there was overwhelming practical objection to reinstate
DB: say again
RO: he comes to u and u say teaching has started and say was true u couldn't switch. No reason to reinstate after half term.

DB: it isn't ideal. Try and get a steady rhythm with class. Not beneficial to children
RO: this happens at other times like women back off maternity
DB: yes but return bc of contract

RO: doesn't go to issue of student experience. In case of maternity it's still that there's change of teacher half way through term
DB: yes obviously.
RO: and if a member is back from sickness
DB: yes

RO: also true some courses involve 1 teacher 1 term and someone else 2nd term
DB: er. Can't think of a case. May do at a level
RO: think for a moment about ur own position in school. Ur deputy head academic. JH deputy head pastoral. All wld have met Head regularly
DB: meet weekly

Rao: how long
DB: long as takes, few hours
RO: during that u interact a lot with Head
DB: operate as team
RO: within team u share concerns team has?
DB: erm. No not really. Look at strategy but if concern about member of staff it wouldn't be place discussed

Rao: you'll be familiar with this doc. U thought very clearly and discussed with colleagues no doubt
DB: say again
RO: familiar with issues in this para?
DB: [reads to self] I'm familiar but no discussed
EJ: this is WP interview
RO: yes

Rao: first question is: we can see that re this issue, the Head was taking initiative. Was him making decisions?
DB: not that straightforward though he is the Head. We don't operate in scenario where he says u must do that. Obvs this meeting I wasn't in.

The head's of tier have no say who teaches what. As far as him saying he doesn't want someone back in classroom, that doesn't happen
RO: here you talk about C not having timetable and having teaching staff instead. As far as ur aware has there ever been objection to C teaching?

(Missed)

RO: so position was body of teaching needed to be done and the choice was between C doing work and history teachers?
DB: (sighs audibly) yeh not sure it's quite a clear as that. Number of things happening at the time. C is furloughed
RO: wouldn't be if he was teaching?

DB: he may have been. Hypothetical
RO: it's not bc your saying one reason not given teaching bc he was furloughed
DB: don't think he was then

RO: one thing that happened in June was that C wrote in requesting academic details and u didnt respond. U say u couldn't as he was furloughed?

DB: it's isn't common to be contacted by ppl asking. Protocol is they shouldn't. U will get queries and u bat them back. In this case he emailed me. All I know this should be through HR
RO: let's get this clear. He shouldn't contact u, go to HR?

DB: no head of dept
RO: not saying that why u didn't reposed
DB: someone in furlough communication is through HR therefore don't respond
Rao: doesn't it u we could've expect MD to get back to C?
DB: yes that'd be fair

RO: accept its common sense if someone on furlough they can email someone and ask what's next?
DB: yes that'd be HR

RO: it's right that one reason C wasn't given teaching was that his legal claim against school had made him unpopular?
DB: no

DB: I'm not sure I knew there was a case. I might be wrong.
RO: you were a member of exec team and I'd suggest it's inconceivable it hadn't been mentioned?
DB: I don't know

RO: u didn't time table in May time and enquiries about allocations. Isn't it right that other furloughed teachers wrote in and asked what they were doing?
DB: not to me
RO: to HR?
DB: I don't know
RO: those are my questions

EJ: how much reexam time?
PW: a few questions
EJ: we'll take break. DB still under oath
PW: I didn't anticipate DB evidence finish so quickly. Should I get someone in?
RO: won't be time
EJ: Come back 3.30

[Court adjourned]

DB - C is expert in two subject areas; RS and classics.
EJ - these two areas still taught
DB - now discussing Covid impact on school, departure of international boarders, and fewer Yr11s. However, another school closed and we actually increased in size.

Actually assistant judge (AJ)
AJ - question about what classes were increased because of closure etc
DB - geography, physics, and there has been an increase in RS provision. Big increase in RS demand this year 2022 (because of change or dropping classics)

PW - significance of being a qualified teacher, did it play a part in C not being allocated a teaching timetable
DB - I don't think it played a part at all, to be honest. We always want qualified teachers but in an independent schools you don't need it. Most people would have tho

PW - you mention how classes were covered; what was the status of prof qualifications of those teachers who covered
DB - I wouldn't be absolute sure, but I think C is the only person who didn't have prof qualification
PW - but it didn't play a role.
DB - no

PW - in academic year 19/20, it was suggested that at half term would have been appropriate to put C in the classroom. Did C come back to you at that stage?
DB - No. There are 2 accounts here and they differ. He did come to my office, asked what is happening with the timetable

I said 'not in your interests to explore this' He said 'I guess there is quite a lot of cover for me at this point' And I agreed but he did not pursue.
PW - that is my last question for the witness.
EJ - releasing the witness and discussing tomorrow's programme.

PW - Mr Gregory first and Ms Dakin after.
RO - I understand that and will work to that programme.
RO - now asking about finishing tomorrow around 3 pm, and then discussing submissions.
EJ - asking PW RO to discuss how they want to go about submissions before tomorrow.
End

@threadreaderapp unroll please