Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon on Day 5 of the Employment tribunal for RM v Westminster City Council and Social Work England. We expect Naomi Cunningham to examine evidence.

1.45pm 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

SC: Calling Hazel Best [who affirms]
SC: Asks to confirm her name, address and clarifies that HB no longer works for WCC but another council since March 1st 2023
HB: agrees and her new supplementary statement acknowledges her new job

SC: agree that contents are true to the best of your belief?
HB: Yes
NC: I will talk to u about the disc hearing. Before it y'd read the Ix report and the addendum?
HB: Yes
NC: Y've heard me asked BF questions. Did anything worry you at the time?
HB: No

NC: What about now
HB: Nothing of particular note
NC: [Discussing HFs addendum to her report after receiving all the screenshots]
HB: ye I
NC: It's an attempt to work around the law?
HB: I took into account the belief {drill outside..]
NC: read this section please

NC: was this passage surprising?
HB: I took it that they had contrasting views to RM
NC Was this surprising?
HB No, as long as she can be objective
Shldn't this be relevant?
She put her personal and professional belief
NC: Do u expect IO to include irrelevant info re their views?

NC: Do u agree it's irrelevant?
HB: I agree it's partly irrelevant
NC Which part is relevant?
HB She shld have ..
HB Her personal view as a SW it's hard to seperate out
NC Isn't this saying "I'm mot one of these witches but Forstster gets in the way?
HB No

NC Doesnt this show the climate of fear on these issues
HB It shows they're polarising
NC Ppl have to be quick to condemn anything suggestive of transphobia dont they?
HB I didnt come across that
NC Turn to disc hearing notes please on 1312.

NC: HF was required to present the case against the C, re HFs opening of the case she says..NC stops and asks HB to read 3 paras. Let me know when y've done that.
HB: Yes
NC: [reads She starts re freedom of speech - holding and manifesting beliefs] So you cannot manifest these

beliefs if they offend other ppl.
HB Yes
NC IS this acceptable
HB Is diff to comment in isolation and u have to consider distress and offense
NC [missed]
HB Y're entitled to hold beliefs but do they cross the line and be discriminatory?
NC But she's saying something else

NC WE need to consider they cld cause distress and TG ppl might think they wont receive fair treatment. Over and over again she says the beliefs are in the public domain
HB I get yr point but this is in isolation, but the posts in the addendum cross the line in her mind

NC: The IO is syaing that she cannot manifest her beleifs. Someone in WCC is saying they shld continue
HB SWE had decided to have a hearing and wld examine her FTP in that fixed point in time
NC What about this point in time?
HB They thought they'd be finding against RM

NC: They shldnt have pre-empted the finding of the hearing, and is more that one line on this topic in the report
NC: [reads her beliefs are more widely in the public domain...this is gross misconduct...] U didnt say hang on, u cant say she cant express her beliefs?

HB No, I didnt and the trade union didnt say anything either
NC Trying to go around Forstater no?
HB She was trying to ?? the report
NC If you look at ...do you have anything to add? She said dont post on SM. It's clear she felt ?
HB That's her perception, if it's her perception

NC: U allude to 2 posts and say y're entitled to yr views but this is at odds w yr professional role, but now yr newspaper and crowdfunding makes these posts public, when they were private before. This is gross misconduct in yr opinion?
HB Yes

NC: Let's look at the deadnaming cartoon.
It has 3 characters from Harry Potter incl Voldemort saying I identify as the Hero of this Tale. This is charact as making light of deadnaming?
HB It is satirical but a TG going thru MH issues might not see this as satirical and the

impact of deadnaming was emphasised in the training I've had. Pushing for a birthname cld be anxiety producing
NC Tell us more about this training?
HB Was Pembelton & Westminster training and said have to learn if we make mistakes, and to try to get names correct

Also had a barrister give some training
NC But varying thoughts on this?
HB But this cld
NC it doesnt incite hatred though?
HB Bit it cld offence by using birthname
NC Bt sometimes it's necess to use birthnames?
HB Yes, it is
NC So deadnaming can't be taboo
HB It needs context

which this cartoon doesn't.
NC Does it incite violence or is defamatory of anyone in partic?
No, but it cld be offensive
NC It makes fun of something some ppl find absurd. Do u agree they can say this?
HB Yes but u gave to consider the impact

NC You agree by these age discriminations, no?
HB Yes
NC My sex is determined by my biology. Isn't it a fair parallel to draw?
HB No cos not all will see the cartoon in that way. As a SW u are using with a group that might have MH issues and u might have concerns about a SW

posting these images
NC: No incitement to violence or defamatory in the Scouts cartoon?
HB No, but they might not accept it's satirical and isopen to misinterpret
NC This is a terribly low bar for SW leaving SW unable to say anything?

HB: These ppl need to understand you'll come to them with an open viewpoint and are vulnerable
I believe it cld be interpreted in different ways
NC: [talking about other PCs and making decisions] You're a lawyer aren't you/
Yes
U accept that if you're accused on grounds of one PC

NC; that it's not acceptable to say yr defending other PCs?
HB Yes, but have to look at the impact and the context
NC Looking at yr sentence re other PCs [missed] I wld expect my employer to take action against discrim. Is it important to do this?

HB I'm saying id SWE have a hearing I'm expecting the council to undertake an investigation
NC talking about right to immed end a contract but if there's powerful mitigation u wldn't dismiss on gross misconduct?
HB Yes
NC[ listing possible mitigations] Agree? Why not here?

HB: I agree, but decided
NC: But why?
HB: It's about how posts wld be interpreted by other groups
NC: Looking at the suspension risk assessment (RA)
HB: I didnt see this at the time
NC: See p571 [reads part of Cheryl Arcourt's RA..] Said was bullying and haressment and to kids &

adults and risks of this happening is high] This at the time of the initial suspension. What made u change yr mind?
HB I havent seen this doc before. 2 yrs on from the initial RA with no further posts [some confusion] and changed to one year later

NC: We see another RA on p1124, the manager is JG and done in Feb 22. Still element of bullying & harrassment and a high risk to kids and adults, likelihood of an event is high and impact wld be high]
HB I wasn't involved in the RA
NC It does seem rather hyperbolic doesnt it?

HB I dont know the context in which it was completed. I have no idea how it was managed with in the service. I didnt see a risk in returning to work and wondered if the risk cld be to RM herself of bullying
NC: I suggest it was extraordinary not to dismiss?
Isn't it true it was

always heading for dismissal
HB: No [v paraphrased here!]
NC: Yr decision was in July but Forstater came in re GC beliefs re liability was handed down 2 days earlier
HB I wasnt aware
NC But y're a lawyer
HB I wasn't aware of the specifics
NC: Were u aware of the ETs original spin

NC: Was this face saving after the judgement?
HB: I didnt think it met the dismissal threshold [missed a bit]

P: [discrim posts] Is this a typical finding in an invest report?
HB: It was their view it was gross misconduct
Did it worry u about the nature of the investigation and

the investigators view?
[missed]
P: What about RMs role?
HB: She met vulnerable ppl in hospital and that her views cld be discrim and offensive. Overall, I felt was gross misconduct and HR agreed
P Can't hear
HB Yes it was private FB but it cld be shared

P: Did u accept no other complaints re RM
HB: Yes
P2: re her views, did u consider the objectivity of the investigator?
HB No, I though this was their personal view and I cld separate out the two
P2: U say yr beliefs are now in public domain..how much did this affect yr decision?

HB I obvs thought it relevant and was directed by the head of HR. If they made it into the public domain they cld undermine confidence in SWs
P2: What was yr thinking re length od suspension?
HB She hadn't shared more on FB, and given us more info
P2: what was specific to suspen

No further posts
P2: Had u thought of another outcome?
HB: Yes, Head of HR persuaded me to go this way but I had considered final written warning
J: Can u recollect the crowdfunder?
HB Vaguely I didnt really look much
J What about the articles in the papers?

J: Was it approp for you to look at these in this situation?
HB I had a set no of days to respond within and this was complex and I was still wrestling with the decision and head of HR pushing to respond.
J Did u feel free to make yr own decision or was the director of HR

advice hard to ignore?
HB I cld have done but wld have been hard to ignore their advice
J Did u consider the Ix was independent of the regulator?
HB WCC didnt have access to all the info originally so we were dependent on the regualtor and later reveiewed all of the posts

And we cut down 4 posts to 2 posts being problematic
J Did you hear about the 6th July letter?
HB I dont recall it
J It's a long letter. At the time of the suspension, was there awareness of negativity in the council's SW dept about her return?
HB No but I'm not close to the dept

HB That's why I mentioned concern that bullying might be of RM herself.
P2: on p619, [re findings looked at re the discip process and Ix remit and categories] Why didnt u find a category outcome in category 3?
HB Was time restraint with the deadline. Was just the 2 posts over

the line. Which could be classed as category 1 or 3
P2 Did you come to a finding?
HB No I wasn't using the headings, but it wld have been a 1 rather than a 3
NC: I have a belated Q. On p1422, [read decision letter] WCC expects an immed and sustained improvement in yr conduct,

but y'd already quietened her, so y'd shut down her freedom of expression?
HB No, I'd deny that. These 2 posts potentially went over the line
NC That's too much for gross misconduct?
HB I felt they did go over the line
NC About drafting the letter / document...
HB Was just me

HB I didnt write with anyone else
NC who has this document?
NC A working document should still have been disclosed, no? Why not?
HB I get no support from WCC now
NC: No doubt SC will look for this. [reading about SS care for a disabled woman]
HB They have a right to express

their desires
NC Can you not understand their fear?
HB This wasn't my role in the council. I'd expect a person to be able to say that, whether or not they understand the position of their SW

HB is released.
J: discussed possible break and HF's statement and attendance. Adjourn.

Return for Ann Ffrench to swear on the Bible
SC: Confirm your name, professional address and confirm truth of yr statement
AF: Yes
NC: Good afternoon MIss French. I was confident re timings but forgot about the tribunals Qs

NC: Go to para 2 of yr statement u start on 4th Oct. Was this yr 1st involvement in the case?
AF No. My 1st involvement was after the case examiner report was received on July 22nd and was involved before the suspension

NC: Look at email chain on p576, we see AG's email to DB forwarding the SWE email incl their report, fwd to Chanel and Simon ? Kern. Chanel forwarded to you and BF. Then an urgent flurry of activiy
AF: Yes, there was a meeting, with HR and Chanel and BF & what to do

NC Was a decision to suspend both
AF I wasn't involved in the suspension discussion but was at RMs suspension meeting
NC Why haven't u provided this info?
AF I was asked to provide ??
NC U were the HR advisor that helped in the suspen meeting?
AF Yes, but not phone calls

NC: who made the decison to suspend?
AF Chanel wld do the RA, and she wld sign off with Exec Lead
NC It's isolating and humiliating and separates from work, even tho no assumption of guilt in being suspended
AF Yes
NC Look at p572, do u agree with the completion of the RA?

[lists the answers] Is it correctly completed
AF: For F and I I'd say NO but assume for J it'd be potential risk to adults
NC What kinds of risks?
AF I assume she'd be referring to RMs practice being undermined
NC Be more specific re concrete bad events possible if not suspended?

AF Difficult to answer [long pause]
NC It is isn't it, she had an unblemished record
AF I think was a potential reputational risk but wasnt my decision to make
NC Was WCC a SW Champion at that time?
AF I dont know
NC This is the kind of thing SW would want to happen isn't it?

AF: I think the decision was based on the SWE report so the RA has to be taken under that context
NC: Re the susp meeting, which isn't in yr statement,
AF: It was only done at the last minute..hostile..?? [witness has a v quiet voice and hard to hear]
NC: This is accurate. Did u

show her any support?
AF: Yes, I did and have been in many mtgs and wld have given time for them to compose themselves and offer support
NC What might have happened reputationally?
AF: Hard, you have to take on may factors incl info to hand. I cant answer for Chanel but 70 posts

had been highlighted as potentially discrim
NC: It's hard to put u in this position. It was a cruel and unncess decision to suspend wasnt it?
AF Its not one person's decision and ppl will speak up if they think it's the wrong decision

NC: In the addendum she says she believes RMs beliefs are bigoted but post Forstater she's allowed to hold them. Do u agree? [looking for paperwork] I want to remind u of the passage re ?? [can't hear]

Sc: We're unable to contact the person about returning so will attempt again tomorrow. HH and Pedro will be in as first witnesses tomorrow.

J: we will finish now and resume at 1pm tomorrow
Court adjourned

@threadreaderapp unroll