Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to Day 4 of the Employment tribunal for RM v Westminster City Council and Social Work England. We expect Naomi Cunningham to examine evidence.

10am start

Catch up with the case info here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westmin…

Abbreviations
J - Employment Judge Nicklin
RM or C - Social Worker sanctioned by SWE
NC - Naomi Cunningham, Barrister for RM

WCC - Westminster City Council
SWE - Social Work England
SC - Simon Cheetham KC, Counsel for Social Work England and Westminster City Council

FW - Francis Edouard Whittaker, SWE
Case Examiner Operations Officer

BR - Berry Rose, SWE
Head of Triage and Case Progression
JB - Julie Bann, solicitor for WCC
LK - Laura Kenney, SWE investigation supervisor
GN - Graham Noyce, SWE case examiner, professional

MM - Mermaids

SFW - Standing for Women

FPFW - Fair Play for Women

WPUK - Women's Place UK

Other:
GI - Gender Identity

GC - Gender Critical

BITWB - 'Born In The Wrong Body'

WORIADS - Worthy of respect in a democratic society

Apologies in advance as I'm not the best typist and conditions are difficult in this courtroom.

We were not given permission for remote access to the hearing so are attending in person in Central London.

We've started.
NC: discussing timings today and requests the panel read various documents that weren't on the pre-reading list and the claimants statements about the FTP before breaking up at 12.15 [an early lunch today]. And suggesting which SWE documents to read

NC, J and SC discussing which documents have already been read.
After xexamining FW today it will be Miss Rose this afternoon

SC: Bernie Flattery will be SWE's first witness and then follow the plans

SC: FW is affirming [which he does]

SC: Turn to page 128 of small bundle, could I ask you to confirm your full name and address and confirm your 8 page statement are true and correct?
FW: yes
NC: I am going to ask you about the law altho yrs is not the final word on the law, like yday. Turn to p540, 8 July decision

NC: Decision of final warning etc. This is the final order?
FW: Yes
NC: In your statement you say [slight delay] in para 17 [having trouble finding the document] Discussion about the 28 day limit. In para 17, sent a copy of the final decision and the rules of the 28 day period

NC You could not imaging how this wld apply to a warning?
FW Yes
NC So it was a final order, and this regulation cld apply to it. Then a list of things the regualtor can do. So is a wide range of powers incl reviewing?
FW Yes, but we felt new evidence would be required

NC: Turn to p601, from case exam operations, date 9 Aug 21, you say [reads] there is no route open once it's closed. that's wrong isn't it?
FW: No I dispute this. The case examiners findings wld still be in place so I believe that para to be accurate
NC: Goto p2176

NC Part of the early review guidance, What it is, and how to review eg getting new evidence, but it misses out this paragraph about the SW requests a review
FW: This wasn't our interpretation. SWE cld ask for a review at any time, but our interptretation of para 15.2

NC I'm suggesting that SWE could have used this way if they Thought C was being discrim aagianst?
FW No, that's not how I see it
NC: Suppose a case examiner reviewed a case and thought it showed discrim, what shld SWE do?
FW: Have a review of what happened, but we wldn't change

NC You're saying there's nothing you cld do without new evidence?
FW We now have new powers
NC But there was no route open to you to say we've got this wrong
FW Correct
NC Whatever u thought of yr powers that didn't happen at SWE?
FW No

P: You took RMs request to be a request for an appeal rather than a review within the 28 days? Wasn't this within the 28 days?
FW This isn't my area of expertise. This is rare occurrance, I've not seen this in my 4 yrs. The regulator could seek to ??

P: She'd need to submit evidence within 28 days?
FW: Yes
P: What evidence needed would have to be decided by the investiagtions team?
FW: This is a matter for the regulator as I need independence from them, and have to have distance and not ask for information myself

P2: Before we go to para 90, do you do sanity [?] checks to make sure the process has been followed?
FW: No. Not in my remit.
P2: Expected disposal is likely to be the best outcome. When is this devaited from if they don't accept the finding?
FW: They've been more comfortable

FW: [can't hear] [discussion on impairment]
P2: Did you read the full decision?
FW Yes I did
P2: What did you understand the case review sentence on p549 to mean?
FW: Looking at it fresh, there were allegations that cld be seen to be [cant hear]

P2: How do you determine what's in the public interest?
FW: A topic the public are debating, circumstances where [can't hear]

J: Can I ask the conflict of interest document that states that SWE have been informed of the outcome. Re the chronology, how much were u involved in the

process?
FW: [discussion about the press involvement - sorry, lots of noises outside] It may also be feedback to case managers altho I'm not their line managers. I'm very careful of the language i use.
J: So u didn't give an opinion on what shld happen?

FW: No, its not my role and I'd only skimmed the bundle
J: How much media involvement was there?
FW: It was potential press involvement / high profile case
J: How much info were u given about the sex/gender debate?
FW: Not much, I was aware it cld be high profile

J: Is there sometimes a perception that a message should be sent to all SW?
FW: Not from me, it's not my role. That would be down to SWE
SC: No questions
[FW finishes his testimony]

Adjourn for 15 minutes

We return at 11.08.
Discussion about the use of microphones

Berry Rose (BR) affirms and approves her 6 page witness statement with SC
SC: No additional questions

NC: Good morning miss Rose. I'm going to ask you about triage, are you the most senior person involved?
Assume she (BR) says yes to this
NC: Looking at summary of concerns raised (of the allegations) in bold, the nature of the complaints is they're all about content and not style

BR: Yes
NC: This was triaged after Forstarter. Were you paying attention to the debate?
BR: Yes, I was aware of it but not the details
NC: The decision making group seems to be workin gon the assumption that the posts are unacceptable

BR: No, it was the way they were expressed cld be considered to be offensive
NC; But that;s not what it says in the documents - it's not about expression?
BR: They weren't happy with the wording
NC: But if you read the concerns and accept WORIADS u can see there's nothing to the

concerns?
J: You say this is a group?
BR: Yes, it's a joint decision
P2: The group to the view at the traige desk that the concerns were serious and likely to lead to impairment to practice.
NC: That's a view if you thought they were discriminatory, but once you know WORIADS it's

very different?
BR: They applied it to what was in front of them
NC: [talking about FB posts] Lots of ppl think politicians are betraying women and this is a reasonable position
BR: Yes, it is
BR: I agree w this post but it's about context
NC: Talking about Mermaids and recent

NC: concerns. That's reasonable?
BR: Yes
NC: Talking about GL petition, is this discriminatory?
BR: Potentially this cld engage w misconduct
NC: Surely you need far more information about this to come to that conclusion as we know nothing about the go fund me or what GL had said

NC: it doesn't come near suspension?
BR: That's not important - is solely whether there are grounds to investigate at this point of triage.
NC: The point of triage is to filter out complaints that are nonsence, no?
BR: That's fair
NC: Look to see if this is all true?

BR: Need to be mindful there's more than 3 posts to look at.
NC: Reasonable to say that 3 out of 70 [missed]
BR: I can't say
NC: I say the decison making group had picked a side and saying that GC was wrong
BR: I don't accept that
NC: How many ppl does SWE employ?
BR: about 250

NC: How many are GC?
BR: None that I know of
NC: What about trans allies?
BR: I don't know of any as we don't discuss this
NC: SWE was a member of the SW Diversity scheme wasn't it?
BR I dont know

NC: Want to discuss SWE 2020-21 plan now, on p1733. Are you familiar with this document? [confusion about page numbers and bundles not matching up] We are SW Champions and discusses inclusion
BR: assume agrees [adding in addit pages to bundle]

NC: You may not be aware of these SW things?
BR: I've never seen this document
NC: Looking at T inclusion policy [reads] and acknowleding the limitations of EA2010.. so SW teaches that the EA isn't good enough? Do you agree?
BR: It does suggest there are limitations