Thread by @tribunaltweets

Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is expected to continue this afternoon from 2 pm. Claimant's evidence continues.

Our live tweeting will resume when the tribunal returns.
This morning's evidence is here:
web.archive.org/web/2024011713…

Previous coverage on our Substack:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edi…

Abbreviations
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
C or RA - Roz Adams, the Claimant
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
R or ERCC - Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the Respondent
DH - David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent

Other frequently used terms
NVC - non-violent communication
BP - Beira's Place
E&W RC - Rape Crisis England and Wales
SRC - Scottish Rape Crisis
GRC - gender recognition certificate

We are in the video conference waiting room. Tribunal has not resumed public session.

It is 14:10, the Tribunal has not resumed public session. We will resume coverage when they return and update if we have any further information.

The conference has opened, we are waiting for the judge and panel to arrive.
Evidence by R Adams will continue.

Panel returns.
NC - just one short thing, given the time we've lost might we limit this hearing to liability only so we don't need to deal with remedy. It seems inevitable we will have to come back for remedy.
J - DH?
DH - I'm neutral, can we make meaningful use of time

DH - I've no firm views but I have no difficulty with the suggestion, given the unforeseen events yesterday we lost a whole sitting day.
J - how long will evidence in chief take?
NC - I'm hoping to finish this afternoon.
(panel talking among themselves)

J - we are happy with that on the basis that at all costs we get the evidence done by end of day Wednesday.
Please proceed.
NC - let's go back in time a little, slightly out of order, an exchange between MW and AB where MW confirms what you had done was humiliating and

confirms they need have no further contact with you.
Did anyone tell you about that?
RA - No.
NC - when did you hear about it.
RA - when we did a subject access request and read the email.
NC - now looking at final version of notes of meeting, are you happy with those?

RA - yes
NC - so what happened next - not what you know now, what you knew at the time was happening.
RA - corrects NC, not the correct notes
NC - apologises, corrects reference
RA - so that meeting (second investigation)
6 July and after that I heard absolutely nothing back

RA - I know it was 27 days.
NC - then you had an invitation via an email, tell the tribunal how you felt
RA - I was horrified, absolutely horrified. I had heard nothing, then get this email inviting me to a second investigation meeting, didn't know who they were talking to or

RA - or what they were saying.
RA - I was completely puzzled, the scope of the investigation seemed to have expanded, to the possiblity that I might have expressed further transphobic views, I had no idea what this was about
NC - now turning to your response

NC - you asked for more detail as to what you were alleged to have said so that you were prepared for the meeting. The response was 'about several comments you may have made at some point in the past'. Did that answer your question?
RA - No I was in exactly in the same position

I had no idea what I was walking into. It felt cold, lacking in care.
NC - now referring to agreed document, have you read it
J - yes but would be helpful if you take us through it
NC (to RA) can you tell us how that meeting made you feel

RA - it felt really unfair, disconcerting, it was intentional misrepresentation of what I had said, including questions I had asked in the trans training that was set up as a safe space, no question too stupid, I felt like everything about me was being investigated

and questioned. The constant references to 'transphobic' that's not who I am.
NC - reading out from a document - Q to RA - 'can you tell me anyone else who feels like you do'
RA - I felt very unsafe, not at all comfortable, did they want me to name other members of staff

RA - I refused to name anyone, because if they could do this to me, they would do it to anyone else.
NC - 16 Aug, you met Katie McTiernan, what do you recall from that meeting?
RA - I talked with her about the possibility of referring back to our original conversation in 4/21

KM said that we probably shouldn't refer to that conversation because it might broaden the investigation and that she would stick to her observations from the trans training, that nothing I said had struck her as inappropriate. And that's what she did.

NC - 18/9 invitation to disciplinary meeting, what had you heard to this date
RA - nothing
NC - had you asked
RA - yes, I had emailed, then I heard that the report had been finalised on 26 Aug and that I would hear soon, it was passed on to the Board - I had no idea that was

going to happen. Then I got this letter and it was utterly shocking.
NC - exchange between you and Nico on 1/2 Sept, report finalised, passed to board, what did you think was going to happen
RA - I thought surely they'll have heard me, understood me and dropped this, I couldn't

believe it.
NC - you opened on 17 Sept and you phone KT,
RA - I phoned her to say that I had this letter and she knew nothing about it. I was surprised that the 3rd allegation was gross misconduct, and I could be dismissed without notice or pay, so I phone line manager to say

I couldn't come in to work and I needed time to digest this. It didn't make any sense that they would take it to this level. Gross misconduct - that's my career over and my reputation ruined. She agreed I could have some time, she cancelled some service users I was supposed to

see. I went to the doctor and got signed off sick.
NC - why was it important to get signed off sick.
RA - I support traumatised people, and I see them every week, I can't support them if I'm in a bad way myself. I was so utterly utterly shaken at that point.

NC - we see you responded to that invitation to disciplinary hearing asking a number of questions about why the allegations were escalated to gross misconduct. Did you get an answer.
RA - no, I got no answer on that point or any information about what the allegations

based on. I got a response that my questions would be dealt with in the hearing. Then some back and forth about the date of the hearing and I did get another second invitation.
NC - there was an email on 26/9 - what did you think when you read that letter?
RA - I just thought

it was about dates. I don't think I opened the attached letter. I had been working on my response and sent it in. Then Mairi suggested I read the revised letter, 'it should be helpful to you' and it was changed to 'misconduct' and the references to losing my job without notice

were gone. No apology or explanation was offered. The change wasn't signposted to me, and having thought for a couple of weeks I was going to lose my job, it was really difficult.
NC - hearing on 14/10; was that change from gross misconduct to misconduct explained

RA - I raised it and it was described by one of the panel members as an 'administrative error, sorry'. And I think I said something like 'are you joking'. Something so significant to me was dismissed in that way.
NC -we can see that change in the panel's note.

NC - in the whole of your time at ERCC what equalities training did you have?
RA - the only equalities training we had was on gender,
NC - nothing on equalities generally,
RA - we had a staff member with a guide dog and we had some specific training on accommodations.

NC - referring to announcement about Beira's Place.
(reading) It says 'hey everyone' from AB, acknowledging the terrible news that has emerged about the opening of this place, it's landed heavy on me, let me know want to get together to share our feelings (on line of course)

NC - what was AB referring about BP?
RA - that it was a single sex service and that was rooted in transphobia
NC - and what did you think about that
RA - I wasn't surprised, it was the only way that it was acceptable to think about this issue, there was no space to hold any other

view.
NC - and what was the response from management etc
RA - there were replies to the email, saying yes, I'll join the space, terrible news etc. And one or two in particular.
(everyone reading)
RA - looking for a particular email, can't find it, I'm sure it's in here

RA (conts looking)
NC - we can't find it, but your recollection is that there was a response from MW,
RA - yes, agreeing that it was a terrible event, not exact words but 'old fashioned white feminism' 'obsolete', might have said 'supremacist', very damning, said that

JK Rowling was a beneficiary of capitalism, we wouldn't be passing on information to anyone because they were unregulated and we couldn't vouch for the service.
NC - not sure that made it's way into the bundle but that's your recollection.
RA - I'm sure I've seen it.

NC - what happened with the disciplinary hearing and your grievance?
RA - the panel meeting took 3+ hours, I brought me grievance with me in a sealed envelope, I wanted it to be clear that I was complaining about how I had been treated. I tried to give it to them and they told

me to hang on to it and MR would let me know who to send it to.
NC - your grievance was acknowledged and then there was a grievance investigation meeting. Is there anything you want to tell the tribunal about that meeting?
RA - she said it was really unusual that there would be

a meeting, and it seemed very odd and that I was being investigated not my grievance.
RA - MR was trying to group my points (20 points) in a different way, and she invited me to a hearing on what she said I'd raised under those headings, and it really mattered to me that she

wasn't narrowing my grievance. To get this invitation, it was hard to tell but there wasn't any nuance. So the grievance hearing started with me going through and saying 'that's not how I would express that'. She seemed to make them into broad statements that she could refute

rather than the very specific things that I had raised.
NC - you received the outcome, rejecting your grievance, and you appealed. Why did you ask to be suspended.
RA - I didn't finish my previous answer - can I go back
NC yes

RA - what I had feared is what had happened, my grievance was rewritten, regrouped and my original grievance was lost. It was impossible to follow a thread through from my grievance to the outcome. I was off on medical leave from end of September. I was onto statutory sick pay

what I had from the org was running out. I was rapidly running out of income and the delays were of their making. It seemed to me that I should be suspended on full pay until things were resolved. My union rep wrote and explained why they should pay me. And she strongly

advocated for me. They offered me a little bit more.
NC - was it adequate, what they offered you
RA - no, it was 3 months before the disciplinary hearing and the further delay before the grievance and the whole thing took nearly 9 months, it could easily have been that they

sped up the process, or paid me (that's what my rep argued). I was thinking I couldn't afford to go on, I would have to give up or go get another job so I had money to live.
NC - so you appealed the grievance outcome
RA - yes
NC - anything about the process you want to note

RA - I was given 10 days to respond, finishing on 23 December, 2 days before Christmas, I worked really hard to make sense of what had been sent to me, I was then chasing them (not over Christmas but after) it was another week, dealing with the issue of sick pay, looking after my

sister, it was really really hard time. There was one board member at that hearing, she seemed to get it, I got a decision a few days later. It did seem to uphold some aspect of what had happened; length of time, the language used 'not helpful or warranted' specifically use of

the word transphobic. There was nothing that warranted the use of that word. Apparently MW said in that grievance interview in December that I was transphobic. I was told I would receive an apology. But she didn't uphold that there was bias or that they hadn't followed proper

procedure, that wasn't a detriment.
NC - recommendations were made to ERCC, which of those were acted on
RA - they should have reviewed the grievance procedures, that hadn't happened, they were supposed to give training to management and trustees, I don't know what happened

and that they should apologise to me for language used in the disciplinary - 27 references in the document to 'transphobia'. I never received an apology.
NC - you then had a letter saying the disciplinary process would restart also apologising for the length of time

was there ever an apology for language
RA - no
NC - now onto outcome of disciplinary, how did that feel
RA - it was very unsatisfactory, they upheld that I engaged in behaviour that was likely to distress a colleague, they referred to innoccous emails that I'd sent,

RA - its' not true that AB said they didn't want to have any further conversation, I wasn't asking for a conversation. There was nothing in there that was in any way harassment. I thought it was unjust. They then said because of the undue length of time they were not going

to issue the warning. But that it was obvious that I had still done something seriously wrong.
NC - you appealed the outcome,
RA - can I go back slightly - what they were failing to do was engage in the actual issue. They were treating it as if what I had done was completely

without context. I kept trying to say the important thing here is how we deal with service users and a trauma informed approach. They seemed to treat it as a technical issue between AB and me. And never touch on the actual issues.
NC - then you had the outcome of the appeal

letter talks about return to work. How did you feel about returning to work?
RA - they weren't addressing...they just weren't addressing that policy and procedures needed to make sense that staff needed to have unambiguous guidance. The theme running through the investigation is

that I was transphobic. And that was what everyone thought. And I asked for mediation to restore the relationship with AB, its referred to as a possibility but only if AB wanted to. No sense that AB needed to figure out how to work with another professional. How could I return

NC - you wrote to MS, what were you trying to do.
RA - they said they wouldn't make a statement, and MW had said that my actions were driven by transphobia, and that wasn't true and that the board should make it clear that MW couldn't say that about me.

And another senior member of staff said despite my denials my explanation indicated underlying transphobia. And I was interacting with these people everyday. I had a strong sense that anything I did was going to be jumped on at the first opportunity to get rid of me.

NC - a response from the board - did that give you what you were looking for?
RA - I had a reply from 2 board members that the 2 senior staff would understand from the outcome of the disciplinary that I wasn't transphobic and they weren't going to make a statement.

RA - and they said the question on sex vs gender of service workers was an operational question and that needed to go back to the organisation. And so nothing happened and they hadn't done anything.

NC - looking at your resignation
RA - I had no trust that I could go back into the organisation that I could ask clear questions and be able to look after our service users.
NC - what prompted you to leave
RA - I felt unsafe. If I was off sick, I had no income.

NC - what contact had you had with Beira's Place prior to resigning
RA - I heard about it in December like everyone else, I knew someone there and I said maybe I would be interested. I contacted them after I resigned and sent them my CV, and they offered me employment

I started a month later at the beginning of may.
NC - thank you, that's all I have.

Going to cross examination from DH.

DH - clarifying the contact with Beira's Place. When was that?
RA - right after it opened, I didn't contact the org, I spoke with the person I knew
DH - we know that you resigned on 30 March 2023. By that stage BP had opened. Looking at the window of time - when did you have

that conversation with BP support worker?
RA - I think early January, I was exploring options, money was running out.
DH - you ment'd that you had been working in other orgs in the borders, 'bridging the gap',
RA - That was in Glasgow
DH that was a lengthy period

RA - 17 years
DH - was areas were you working with
RA - I was working with immigrants, asylum seekers, looking to integrate into the community
DH - what was your job title
RA - senior project development work, I think
DH - prior to working with ERCC you'd been working with

bridging the gap. You hadn't been working in the area of sexual violence etc.
RA - there's lots of relevant experience, refugees are often victim of sexual violence,
DH - your response to the Board survey, lets look at that.

DH - you make reference to accepting that you and ERCC came from different disciplines, within counselling and support.
RA - the model that ERCC follows is that people do not have to have a counselling background or qualification. I was grateful that they were willing to take

me on and its good for diversity. We could also offer support skills. In a more pragmatic way at times. I appreciated the opportunity to come into this work with a different set of skills.
DH - did ERCC do things a bit differently than what you were used to
RA - yes the job

was different and it was a bigger organisation and I really appreciated those things, I was given a budget for external supervision , and able to set up an outreach service.
DH - questions about NVC, this is a technique that's used for counselling or supporting individuals

RA - it's much more than I technique, it's a lens to understand people and the world and it involves some taught skills but it's bigger than that. It comes from Carl Rogers, a leader in field of counselling, brought together by Marshall Rosenberg to make it teachable.

DH - did I understand one of the principles or purposes of NVC to be to try and encourage an individual to consider the perspectives of another person.
RA - yes
DH - the principles of NVC recognise that conflict is an inescapable part of human life, and its to give people

tools to negotiate those conflicts.
RA - yes to recognise that person is human, at that the subject can be something that is very important to both parties
DH - a purpose of debate or discourse to be able to identify areas of common ground and agreement to enable them to

build on those areas or agreement.
RA - could you repeat that
DH - repeats, adding 'allowing them to identify the areas where they disagree'
RA - not really, the point is to work out a way in which you can move forward and work for everyone, it's not just what do we agree on

RA - and disagree on. My proposal to use a questionnaire for example to find a way for everyone to be comfortable to move forward.
DH - there can be perspectives that cannot be reconciled and that therefore can be areas of thought of belief that people must agree to disagree

RA - there are time when we are not going to hold the same beliefs about something. And organisations must find a way to manage that. That's life. That might still be that we don't hold the same beliefs.
DH - this might be an appropriate moment to close that short chapter

J - yes. And how long do you expect your cross examination to take? Do we need to have any witnesses on standby?
DH - I think it might take me most of tomorrow but I will go over my questions with a red pen tonight.
J - you don't want them hanging about given the temperature in

the rest of the building.
We are adjourned until 10 am tomorrow.
Court rises.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.