Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are due to join the afternoon session of RA v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

A summary, abbreviations and previous sessions are in our Substack linked above.

We're still in the waiting room waiting for the public session to start...

And we're in...counsel is getting seated and we await the judge

J: Welcome back. Can we continue?

NC: U said before lunch that a s worker cld decide what to reveal, but AB didnt want to field these Qs?

MR I said they cldnt share info at first contact. I dont beleive AB

MR: asked for how to respond but wanted a policy on this

NC: Looking at notes of appeal hearing [finding page] First point is RA told her what not to do and Mhairi agreed. You agree w this?
MR I imagine so if that's what recorded. And agree that now
NC: But a user had asked a Q

and she didnt know how to handle?

MR The C had been told what not to do and shld have asked a line manager
NC: That's exactly what she did
MR I disagree re copying AB as there's been convos about involving AB. If any doubt speak to a line manager, which cld be private

NC: Y're saying copying in AB is the reason for misconduct?
MR She shldnt have done it
NC She wasnt disobeying info
MR She shared info and cc in AB against her wishes and instruction had been given re email contents. So not following instruction
NC Are u saying challenge is

misconduct?
MR No. Was copying in AB and putting it a forum.
NC But everyone in this forum knew AB and their sex?
MR I believe they were in the same team but might not know. But convos re name change were the issue
NC: what shld she have done after the enquiry?

MR Speak to manager
NC What shld she have done?
MR She cld have said Ab was NB and not a man. ANd the user cld req a different worker if uncomfortabel
NC And u think this an adequate answer?
MR Yes
NC Even when the user knows it's women only and TiM employed
Opposite counsel Dont

answer that
NC Restates the Q
MR Yes
NC How wld the centre have responded to a Q about a users concerns re being with a male person?
MR It shld be escalated upwards so say the CEO makes the decision. At this level gives advice to what to say to the user

NC So go to senior mgmt?
MR The Q is answered. They're not seeing a man
NC [reading from query re whether AB is a man or woman]. Email response of RA: can I get some guidance. My instinct is to respond AB is a woman who IDs as NB. Wld u let me know how this is for you?

NC: This is the email the C is being disciplined for. Is it a reasonable and considered response?
MR: No
NC: Should the whole team know how to handle this situation as AB has a male name?
MR: I understood this had been discussed prev so this was a repeated disc on the same issue

MR It shld have been raised with a LM and not the team
NC Ata ateam mtg it had already been discussed?
MR Yes
NC She hadnt responded to a user, as claimed. She shld have listened the first time. Is that fair?
MR No
NC What about disc for not listening the first time?

MR The email contains sensitive info re AB which shld not be shared. Asking can I have guidance wld suffice and incl info shld not have happened
NC But everyone knows this info already?
MR AB had said not to be in conversations though

NC This was heavy handed for asking a Q
MR Was part of a chain of events and not the sole part
NC It's stupid and dangerous to make it hard for workers to ask for info
MR I dont think so. Others had asked for info privately

NC The info about a gender journey was private to the centre and not a public forum?
MR Private is between 2 ppl so this isnt a private communication

NC A definition of sensitive personal data [reads] It doesnt mention sex here as special category data?
MR It doesnt use that phrase specifically but is part of physical health and is part of personal data in the chart seen earlier. and in the trans policy.

NC It's an exhaustive lsit and sex isnt here?
MR We took from trans inclusion policy and felt it fitted
NC It prob incl a persons GI as its belief. Is that fair?
MR Are u defining it as a belief?
NC Yes
MR I wld nt catagorise in that way
NC Its a private belief

MR U cld argue that but its not how I'd see it
NC Sharing data and explicit written consent. How do you go about doing this if you're not allowed to ask for consent?
MR If there was a need to disclose personal data the person shld go to their LM, as not following policy and

they'd ask for consent privately
NC The policy provides for granting consent
MR AB had asked to not be involved in disc re their name change, so shld have paused and shown LM the email privately and not sicussed w AB. The C chose to go against policy which cld have caused distres

NC Looking at table
MR I dont recall seeing this before
NC Do u understand gender to mean GI or sex?
MR I guess for me it's both?
NC So...[missed?]
MR Let me look again for clarity on the table
I know there's health records later on that cld come into play

NC Given that everybody knew AB was F and ppl cld easily see AB was F nobody is giving personal info away. Let's break this down. Have you ever met AB?
MR No
NC This charge was obv preposterous?
MR No
NC Moving to 3rd charge of harrassment

NC Look at the 16 pages of notes on this allegation. U were interested in the aspect was narrowed to 22/23rd June emails sent to AB
MR I beleive so. Altho it was around the period of 15th to the final emails
NC U werent looking at the wider allegations re potential transphobia?

MR: Correct
NC: Would you read long passage from the C from p314? Where the C says trying to upset isn't who I am and I have tried not to do that my whole career. Yes, read the whole passage please. To point where the claimant asked for water.

[lengthy time reading]
NC: Do u agree that it's in that passage it becomes clear u have narrowed the scope of the enquiry re the C's treatment of AB? In the disciplinary. Discussions were wide and looking at what's caused distress. NC said AB didnt want to discuss?

NC Y're disgarding the earlier investigation?
MR We set out how we wanted to go through the Ix. The Cs distress re a much wider Ix into what else she's said and her colleagues views
MR She was v distressed. These are always distressing events.
NC But this isnt normal. This is a

NC wide ranging Ix and colleagies saying she's hiding her transphobia
MR Complaints shld be fully investigated and it was approp to do this and asking Qs about the allegations raised. The Ix showeds ome staff thought she's broken the trans polic, some not. As some were in

training spaces we said these comments aside.
NC: There'd been no formal complaint had there, that she was in breach of policies?
MR Staff had made complaints to mgmt so we had to Ix them
NC U say it's incumbent on them to Ix, but supposing one of the staff members had gone to

mgmt and said I'm concerned my colleague is a communist or Tory. Shld this be investigated?
MR I dont think we have a policy on those issues, but we had issues raised baout the trans policy
NC Does it require ppl to accept Twaw literally?
MR No the policies focus on behaviour

NC You shldnt Ix her beliefs should you?
MR But the complaints were about her behaviour and not her beliefs and how ppl felt being in the room with her
NC Moving to [page] Looking at concern about Ix procedures, it wld have been helpful to have a definition. Is this fair?

MR No as we were looking at bullying and Harrasment and trans policies and looking at her behaviours
NC But there are refs to her transphobia. what does the org mean by this?
MR My letter said it was about these two policies. I want interested in her beleifs.

NC But the prev Ix was about her beliefs?
MR The 1st was about her emails in June. Leter it expanded to complaints by other staff members
NC Abiut her views?
MR I cant imagine what was in the complainants' heads.
NC You read the Ix Report?
MR Yes

NC New allegations about the Cs potentially t'phobic views came to MC's attention?
MR It says that
NC Seems to suggest the C wanted a convo re sex, gender and legality. Is that sinister?
MR I think..It does say that but it also says RA immed emailed about this..the summary para

MR I didnt read them in isolation, but the separate email Q re legality
NC Is this misconduct? her behaviour?
MR Yes, her behaviour
NC Under conclusion, it says [reads re NB] Are those bad things? [reads re language is power] Does this make the Cs beliefs something she shld be

disciplined for?
MR No. But we were looking at behaviour.
NC But the report focussed on her beleifs which was predictably distressing - a wide ranging inquesition involving her colleagues
MR We interveiewd those present at the same time as the complainants, to check their veracit

MR An employer has to Ix.
NC An employer doesnt have to Ix beliefs as they're not their business. It contarsts the Cs beleifs to the centres, MR Yes
So they're being compared?
MR I didnt mean that. This is a summary and I didnt read as an Ix into them

NC Why does this contrast matter? The report writer isnt attending here are they
NC Here are conclusions about her views here?
MR This is paraphrasing others concerns
NC: Sipervision w KT and presence of NBs in a womens only organisation. Was she not entitled to challenge?
MR No

NC: RA said not being able to ask Qs of T ppl isnt alright / wldnt be safe to work w trans survivors. AB things RA is subtle about her views and concern re working w trans survivors. Comments have underlying transphobia. RA denies making t'phobic comments and believes those

NC born w male priviidge shldnt be in womens units. Its clear this is an inquisition w a view to disciplining her if she believes the wrong things. That's the nature of the process?
MR Addit ppl raised the complaints and I wld read there was a feeling that this wasnt expression

of views but making ppl quite distressed. Sometimes behav in safe spaces is interpreted, and some ppl were hurt and distressed
NC But ERCC has become an enviroment where ppl are led to believe if they dont accept the same views that's bullying or frightening

MR Not my experience
NC What is behaviour beyond expressing these views?
MR I'm trying to think of an eg. I'm sure, as a woman, I have expereinced men behaving sexist written off a joking behaviour. I'm not finding a really good eg. There's asking a Q to make a point or to find

info, or to cause upset. That's hypothetical.
NC But none talk about it like this - just about views
MR I didnt read it that way, but behaviour in that environment. I also read views that supported her.

NC: Read the section the impact of the investigation process on my health up to my work record has been unblemished. Do you doubt any of this?
MR No
NC It's a predictable result of the Ix
MR I cant feedback on all of it but it's inevitable it's distressing and hurtful process

NC: So re the harassment emails, [finding pages]
"Hi AB, it's been on my mind to contact you" [etc reading out re possibly being triggering and expressing regret re how worded]
NC: You were aware that alth MW had said no contact but C hadnt been told?
MR I dont think it had been

said
NC No contact hadnt been agreed at this point?
MR No Roz hadnt receieved this instruction at that time
NC Is the email an act of B&H?
MR I feel comfy saying it was an unwelcome email leading to a convo that AB had said dint want to have

MR: it. She knew AB didn't want to have it
NC: Are you comfy saying this email is B&H?
MR: Over all we felt it was B&H
NC: AB had responded to the C's email - it was humiliating and I dont want convos with you?
MR Yes
NC The C responds to that re being sorry about impact

NC: And not wanting to humiliate and wanting to learn from this. Sending with care and acknowledging impact.
NC: Are u able to agree that this an exceptional considerate kind and humble response?
No
NC You think it's bullying?
MR We read the beginning. We knew it would cause

MR upset
NC What's the most hurtful thing in it?
MR The whole email is hurtful as expressed didnt want an email and had felt humilaited and said didnt want to enter a convo. And had been hurt by the 15th email. I also wrote to apologise after KT expressed her shock

NC: So you're turning down my invitation to find the most hurtful part?
MR: I can look at the whole thing?
NC: Yes, please do [reading]

MR: I think the email in its entirety was hurtful and hard to find the most toxic part of it..
J Getting feedback from viewers
MR Particularly in the context of wanting to be uninvolved in these emails

NC: ABs response to the 23/6 email: [reads I feel humiliated and dont want a convo] As a response to the warm email from the C its a brutal slap down?
MR Its a statement of how they feel
NC Was there bullying claim against AB?
MR No
NC It's inconsistent that a brutal slap down

isnt disciplined?
MR: They were told not to contact, and personal info had been shared. Its a one line response to a Q. That's how we interpreted it but obvs not in ABs head when they sent it [new pages]
NC: Did you see these exchanges during your IX?
MR No

NC: End of initial enquiry on 15/6 that caused the dics process. AB responds [just been talking to MW about this enquiry] C responds appreciating sense of urgency. AB's initial respons is calm?
MR It appears this way
NC Are u saying they werent?
MR No, u lack the context written

NC: Kim responds after disc w MW that we dont have men here. Roz: This does feel like a minefield but we do need to consider ppl's needs. she's making it clear she wants to know the legal position?
MR Yes
NC It's only after this ABs upset appears?

MR In the context it feels like a contin of a disc re ABs name change that they didnt want to be involved in - re the legality. Which will have been hurtful to AB.
NC But AB needed to engage in this. They adopted a name that cld be read as male. A problem of ABs making and needed

to engage.
MR: No. It's a LM's role to look at this
NC: ABs email 16/6 is the 1st sign that AB is upset - asking to be removed if the chain continues?
MR Yes
NC Given their 2st response and later responses, and MWs response. did u wonder if MW had encouraged 2 react more strongly

MR No. I read this as get this off my desk. U come to an email in your own brain and dont know the context when written. It felt polite and official to not be involved
NC This was MW seizing on an opp to fire a terf and make more inclusive?
MR No
This is compelling w what we

NC heard yday?
NC MW invited u to get this disc started?
MR Yes, Invited me but I was not the 1st choice

NC: Reads...we will inform you of our decision [re disciplinary hearing which was paused for grievance and 4 month delay]
NC: Onto disciplinary outcome letter, y're outcome is expressed in two bullet points - causing distress and not following instructions

NC You dont tell her the reasons for yr decision do you?
MR I thought the letter was enough info and when Roz asked for more info and we offered to meet
NC Why not in the letter as per policy?
MR I wanted it to be out quickly and succintly and offered yo meet her

NC U must have known it wld come back to the latter after 4 months. U shld have sketched out yr decisions earlier?
MR That wld assume the grievance wldnt have a bearing on this. I want making presumptions. What id grievance had been upheld? A different mtg might have been needed.

NC So u downed tools until the grievance was over?
MR Thats not a fair representation. I added content to the policy letter but didnt add excessive words to the letter, that's correct
P What kind of training did u have from the chair?
MR Strategy docs
P Any ongoing training?
MR Y

MR RCS training on how strategies work, role training on being trustees
P ?HR support, does everyone have this?
MR I dont know but imagine is mgmt resource and believe they're notified who might contact them. By MW I believe

P You'd neer done a DH before?
MR Yes
P You drafted the allegations?
MR Yes, I drafted and then sent for support
P where did u get the info on Data protection?
U decided to add these DP allegations
MR Yes
P Did u look at the policies and the Ix and complaints about the Ix?

MR Yes, and I concluded that elements of the expanded Ix were unclear and diff to make conclusions about. Difficult to feel it was... The expansion of the Ix made it diff to reach a conclusion about going forward w a disc process from the evidence

MR we had a note of learnings, meaning we wished to... tidy up the notes of some of the interviews. Consistency and things like that
P The C, apart from the disc, facing wide ranging Ix but y've decided y're onlt lookinf at a subset. Why not tell her this?

P: None of the invitations refer to DP at all but to Trans and inclusion policies [reads re new allegations] C says wld like more information. Reads re response. How did u deal w that complaint?
MR At the panel mtg? We noted it, which sounds...
P who did u want to discuss this

with?
MR With Nico, but we were waiting for the process to end and wanted to be confidential. It's a small org and didnt want to undermine the policies or proceedings
P Essentially u were waiting for the grievance outcome before publishing but y're not told anything about the

grievance. How do u square that?
MR I was [missed] As had no further info after the appeal I restarted it.
P Who told u this?
MR Elaine Cameron I believe, I took at face value
P: You were asked about ? did the claimant take up yr offer of a discussion?
MR No

R Counsel: [hard to hear] Want to clarify, who is NC who has put down initials?
MR:
R: Was Nico present?
MR I beleive it shld be CE from Unite representative?
MR No is Naeve McCrossen, I apologise
R Counsel: Re the emails of the 15-23 June you reference Kim Townsends emails

Looking at how many emails there were. An email from her to the Claimant on 17/6 do you recollect seeing this?
MR Yes
R counsel: I think that's all. Yes, thank you
J That's your evidence completed so we'll call that a day and reconvene at 10a on Monday

Discussion on when next witnesses will appear. Katie McTernan is likely to be first witness on Monday morning for ERCC.

Court adjourned.

@threadreaderapp unroll