Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon: waiting for 3pm 1500h when the hearing of Prof Jo Phoenix vs the Open University will resume. Second thread of the afternoon.

JM - Jane Mulcahy, counsel for the OU
JP - Professor Jo Phoenix
J - Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or Panel Member
BC - Ben Cooper, Counsel for JP
Waiting for hearing to resume

Hearing resumes
Clerk describes issue over witness statements. Discussion over uploading of statements.

Continued discussion over witness statements needed by Panel and other access issues

P: Assumes we will not get to Professor Earl today. We will have questions JM: I think we will be quick on Monday morning P: When will you finish JM: I'm hoping we will be done in about half an hour with cross examination

BC: V keen to have second examination of JP before weekend
Panel discusses

Panel: We are content to continue this afternoon, will cut off at 5pm 1700h absolute latest

JM: Nov 2021 *refers to bundle* this is the OU statement on GCRN and academic freedom, talks about establishment of network, finds it challenging but compatible with academic freedom, explains OU review of procedures, says work had been challenging..

JM..'we will continue to listen to all voices and enable them to speak robustly and candidly'... You JP said the statement knowingly perpetuated the hostile environment for me and other gender critical academics' - that's clearly not right is it?

JP: I disagree. (Panel member wants to hear why)
JP: It's a very begrudging statement. The bit that talks about a review - I understood that they took a review of policies because of the establishment of the GCRN - it linked them together.. and also comments on..

JP..'challenging and polarising views' ignored that I was trying to create a space in a very hostile environment and the University had failed to help us create a space when we were under attack.

JP: So I disagree
JM: That's an entirely unreasonable reading of the statement isn't it
JP: I disagree

JM: References statement about blacklisting by Essex and impact on academic career. 'But this is not because of anything the OU has done is it?'
JP: I disagree
JM: How others react is a matter for those people not for the OU
JP: I disagree with you

JM: Refers to witness statement about how others were treated. You say you did a large amount of work as strategic co-chair with Prof Earl for Social Work and Social Policy. Had begun in 2017 for Research Excellence Framework which is done every seven years (it's a way of ..

JM: ..assessing research to assign funding. Right?
JP: Yes
JM: That bulk of work had been completed in early 2021 with submission made in March 2021?
JP: Agree
JM: You got a merit award for that?
JP: Yes

JM: You also had significant responsibility within the Criminality Module - a chairmanship - do you accept?
JP: Yes *explains module chairmanships to panel*
JM: You complain about not being involved in recruitment. Specifically two lecturers interviewed when you were on sick ..

JM..'Leave *gives dates*
JP: Yes but the recruitment ads will be placed 4-5 months in advance - there's a shortlisting process - looking at applications and assessing them - shortlisting is usually done by interview panel

JP: So although I was on sick leave on the actual interview date - in terms of writing the job description, sifting through the applicants, creating a shortlist - I would have been available.

JM: So you think it would be about a six month process?
JP: Roughly yes
JM: Assume your answer in relation to further recruitment interview is the same as previous
JP: Yes
JM: Were you asked to do mentoring?
JP: Yes but it's barely mentoring, I was asked to help with two people

JM: You had memberships of Committees and advisory boards, is that right?
JP: I don't remember any
JM: I'm sure Dr Drake will tell us

JM *refers to bundle*

JM: *refers to appraisal document for year ending 2019 in bundle* There's nothing in your contribution to this to say there are roles you want that you haven't been given - am I right?

JP: These appraisal meetings are a moment when you can get feedback, it's not the same sort of appraisal you might see in a very hierarchical organisation
JM: But you are able to give comments and the next year you say in the appraisal that 'the last year has been exceptionall..

JM: ..'Challenging due to health, I think I've done well despite all that. It's noted by [supervisor} that you had done well despite circumstances

JM: Refers to workload management plan and the writing retreats
JP: Status of writing retreats and their funding is important
JM: Teaching 93 days and at that point the OU ref is 59 days - these are significant commitments do you accept that
JP: Yes
JM: you never ..

JM: Complained about things you wanted to do or were not being allowed to do until your grievance, do you agree?
JP: I disagree and I can explain why

JP: By the time we get to this [AWN] by experience of working in this department was very different. I'd been called a racist uncle at the Christmas Dinner table, witnessed conference cancellation, taken part in two debates in which people were arguing for restrictions of ..

JP: ..'academics such as myself - so the idea that I would challenge one of the people I saw as creating a hostile environment - it was the context. If you are suggesting that it's unreasonable for me to say nothing before then in that context then I disagree.

JM: 'quoting' you were asked in a documentary whether you could imagine that someone at your uni might see your views as transphobic and you said 'sure'. So you could see the logic of that and you see the logic don't you
JP: No. I could see the logic of why they would think..

JP: that but I fundamentally disagree with those thoughts.
JM: When did you come across Rosa Freedman
JP: After the Reindorf report, I did not know her before that
JM: And Reindorf report was May 2021
JP: Correct

JM: You say she told you there was an opportunity to set up a criminology degree at Reading. *reads assessment of uni rankings from JP*
JP: To set up a new degree programme means you have to understand curriculum. Reading had no criminologists. And you have to understand ..

JP. the market
JM: you referred to 'us' in your email to RF and that meant you and Reading, yes
JP: I was considering leaving because it had been such a difficult time
JM: It's clear your plans to go to Reading are already advanced
JP: No this was the beginning of

JP:....discussions and I would have applied if an advert came up. I did in the end apply. But the last thing I ever wanted to do was leave the OU.
JM: refers to VC Reading 'Would rather be wrongfully accused of transphobia than rightfully accused of limiting freedom of speech'

JM: Do you agree with the?
JP: Yes
JM I thought you must do because you said it again. You say to Tim Blackman of the OU six days after network is set up: 'I do understand how hard they are to balance but Reading VC has said [insert above quote] so you quoted that as if you ..

JM: Agree with it, do you think?
JP: Agree but with context - she has suffered herself, she was sent a threat saying hope raped to death, she is Jewish, so the understanding is wrongly *accused* of transphobia that rightly *accused* ..I am not saying..

JP: That I would rather be transphobic
JM: When you were giving advice to Reading you were still employed by OU. You had duties of loyalty didn't you?
JP: I had been regularly consulted about programme development, it's a fairly typical thing
JM: I don't accept that. It's..

JM: ..about setting up something in competition
P: What's the relevance of this?
JM: I'll speak to it
*referring to bundle: email to [Kevin]
JM: You said this about Reading VC: 'he says he has a slightly different approach re security for EG Rosa F -
this shows you ..

JM: already had strong links to Reading
JP: No I'd never met him, everything I knew I got from Rosa or read in the paper or some such
JM: Your application shows there had been some prior contact with Reading - does it not?
JP: No, it was I tried to set up an account..

JP: On a thing called JobTrain, I failed spectacularly but they had email from that
JM: Application to Reading not in tribunal documents
You were then invited to interview on Nov 30, and the day after the interview you got an offer from Reading, that offer isn't the bundle is it

JM: So first interview on Nov 20 and you are an employee on Dec 1. And you just told me recruitment takes six months. So this was an accelerated process and you knew from July you were going to Reading
JP: Are you suggesting Reading did something wrong? That is a very serious..

JP: accusation. Are you suggesting they made a job for me and hired me?
JM: No
JP: Life was so difficult for me at the OU, I was desperate after so many years of dealing with this, I wanted to find something hopeful on the horizon
JM: You sent letter of resignation on Dec 2

JM: That letter doesn't mention Reading does it
JP: No you don't have to explain where you're going
JM: Then you were sent a letter saying grievance suspended because you had left and it was now up to the tribunal
JM for OU ends cross examination

Panel arises for short break and will be back at 1605-1610

Unroll please @threadreaderapp