Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. We expect Professor Jo Phoenix vs Open University to resume at 10am and we will be continuing our live coverage
#OpenJustice

JP - Prof Phoenix, claimant
BC - Ben Cooper KC, JP Counsel
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, OU Counsel

J - Employment Judge Young
P - One of two tribunal panel members assisting the Judge

Further abbreviations can be found on our substack:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

We expect the first witness giving evidence this morning to be Caragh Molloy (CM), Group People Director at the OU, 2019-23

UPDATE : We are now expecting hearing to resume at 11am.

Starting...

JM discussing witness statement with witness.

Witness takes the affirmation

JM and CM discuss changes to the WS

This includes some wording changes and typos

CM WS agreed.
BC: Good morning. Your first involvement was email on [date missed]
CM: Yes

[Date of email is 14 June 2021]
BC: JP refers to Forstater and her treatment being problematic. Did you understand she felt she was being discriminated against bc GC beliefs?
CM: She felt some of the behaviours may be affected by that ruling

BC: [reads out some of JP email where Reindorf report mentioned]. Were you aware of the R report?
CM: Yes
BC: She talks about her recent conversation with Dr Drake. She attached an email she had sent to Dr Drake. Fair to say at 14the June prior to launch of GCRN, she was making

you aware she felt she was being treated unfairly by colleagues in the department and prevented from talking about her research?
CM: Yes

BC: Following launch of GCRN, she was making you aware of a campaign against her. [Gives bundle ref] By evening of 17 June she was highlighting a legal obligation to stop campaign of hate against a group?
CM: Not sure I saw this email.

BC: [Gives another bundle ref] On morning of 18th June JP wrote to you and others setting out what she was experiencing and ID'ing members of her dept involved in an open letter?
CM: Yes
BC: In another exchange JP was letting Wilson know she had been signed off sick.

Were you made aware soon afterwards she was signed off?
CM: Yes
BC: Another email chain forwarded to you on 20th June by Prof Earle. Remind us who RH is?
CM: No I cant

BC: I think somebody in the Wells faculty describing 'increasingly vicious'. Was that your sense?
CM: At that time not sure but subsequently did become aware of traffic on social media that had become somewhat nasty

BC: Another email here looks like you were arranging to speak? Did you eventually speak?
CM: I believe we did
BC: Did she explain the serious impact on her and the group including the claimant?
CM: I dont recall conversation but suspect talking about her concerns

BC: Did you appreciate this was something you needed to reach a decision on pretty quickly? Open letter etc.
CM: We knew that we needed to address the situation and that we should do at the earliest.
BC: We saw at [give bundle ref] that JP was exercised about the open letter.

She was making a complaint on behalf of the centre?
CM: Yes
BC: By the time she raised her personal grievance nothing had been done on this complaint had it?
CM: I don't agree, it was being looked at and considered.

BC: She emailed at 4.20pm on 24 June. You read soon after?
CM: I did not read full grievance at that time, no.
BC: You were part of a working group ensuring these matters were properly addressed. You were HR person on that group and you didn't read it straight away?
CM: No

BC: When did you read it?
CM: I didn't
BC: Ever?
CM: [Explains separation of ppl looking at grievance]

BC: It was the bullying and harassment that was being applied here?
CM: I cant recall I thought it was the grievance process
BC: I will take as fact the B&H policy was applied here.
JM: I will take instructions

BC: [give bundle ref] Timescales. Informal/formal complaints dealt with ASAP. It was clear there was urgency here?
CM: This was complex, there were different PCs, academic freedom and free speech. I would agree do as quickly as possible but also thoroughly and well

BC: There isn't a particular urgency if issue relates to past event. But the claimant was experiencing ongoing issues, did you understand that? Did you read first 4 paragraphs?
CM: I cant say for certain
BC: This is part of the problem of having the person in charge not reading

the policy. How can you possibly address?
CM: Context. Uni has a large team involved in HR. The Grievance team look at
BC: Im so astonished that you didn't read the grievance, we need to take a moment on this. [Gives bundle ref]

BC: Your own email about the working group and its purpose: to deal with issues consistently, complaints managed per process and manage reputation. How can you possibly do that if you dont even read the complaints?

CM: I disagree with that. Wkg group wasn't focussed only on grievance. Normal for an HR person with a team in place to deal with detailed work. Not for a senior exec to be reading in detail. There may be a need later on for participation on a process to be asked Quns or appeal.

BC: But this wasn't a normal situation. You dont normally have a working group like this?
CM: Yes I would agree with that
BC: So how can you possible take decisions if not read grievance?

CM: Recommendations come to the group from those who have looked at detail
J: So there was a team that provided a briefing to the working group?
CM: Yes

BC: Did you understand that ongoing harm from her perspective? And if so, you need to act very quickly?
CM: But in a balanced way and thoroughly
BC: But agree a particular urgency?

CM: Not sure of word particular but urgent
BC: So looking at options. 1. Manager can decide action needed, 2. Investigatory panel, 3. External experts in B&H investigations may be involved
CM: Yes

BC: JP email 29th June that you were later copied into
CM: Yes
BC: She sets out in some detail the ongoing nature of the harm she was experiencing and in particular the open letters? [BC reads out 7 points of detail from JP] Couldn't be clearer that there was need for urgency?

CM: Yes I think Ive already agreed urgent
BC: Did wkg group discuss approach to grievance eg appointment of the panel?
CM: It was a recommendation
BC: Is that in writing?
CM: I cant remember

BC: Did you discuss appointment of an external investigator?
CM: I think we did yes
BC: [Gives bundle ref] Dont tell me about OU legal advice but as a matter of fact this email asserts the open letters are in the same duty to uphold academic freedom as JP rights to GCRN.

It doesn't engage JP points about the nature of what was happening to her? Calling for disc against her etc?
CM: No it doesn't engage with those points.

[JM interjects but inaudible]
BC: On its face its referring to open letters that call for removal of GCRN. Lets move on. JP has been clear and consistent in her reaction. We can see ongoing discussion among your group that says you have responded to defamation

points and everything else is process. The inference is that not going to deal with the harassment and just kick that into the long grass of the grievance process?
CM: No I dont agree with that. Its in line with the fact we were using our processes to deal with issues raised

BC: Did your working group actually turn its mind to the ongoing harm, the discrimination and whether there was action you could take quickly?
CM: Yes, lots of discussion, legal advice taken, lots of views
BC: When you thought about it as a group did you think about balancing

harms each way? Did you conduct that type of exercise?
CM: Yes
BC: So tell me that rationale that on balance it would be worse to take these down then leave them up and cause ongoing harm to her if she turns out to be right?

CM: I can say we sought legal advice and on balancing different rights the statements could not be taken down.
BC: Advisors advise, you as a working group decide. Im interested in your thinking as a working group. Anything else you can help with as to how you balance harms?

CM: I don't think I can add anything to what Ive already said.
BC: So having decided not to take them down, there is then a particular urgency on getting on with the grievance?
CM: Yes

J: Lets stop for a break. Back at 12.15pm

@threadreaderapp please unroll