Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning.
Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre will continue today at 10 am. We are hoping to continue our live-tweeting the case.
The Claimant was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre as a counsellor.
She does not subscribe to gender identity theory.

She believes that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.
The Claimant alleges constructive dismissal because of her gender critical beliefs.

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

We expect proceedings to begin at 10:00am and also expect a delay while the court hears applications from the parties in private.

While we are waiting please can we draw your attention to a clarification in relation to our reporting last week:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1749080242755404242?s=20

We are in the courtroom.
DH discussing tweets about witness from last week. New tech in unknown territory - errors are going to happen. not going to be poss to prevent - way dealt with is what matters

TT have issued apology extremely quickly and with prominence. This will be expanded on - r we ready to proceed

Witness is affirming ; to tell the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth

Witness is Katy McTernan. Head of services at ERCC.
for 3 years and a bout 3 months. joined Nov 2020
b4 was head of Scot and north east for volunteering matters

KT a national volunteering charity
KT: my responsibility - managing a senior team of senior counselling support workers who provide advocacy support to survivors. role is operational, managing safeguarding etc. also part of senior management team (SMT)

I attend board meetings

DH: what service user contact would u typically have in your role
KT: dealing with complaints mostly or safeguarding.(SG) SG through team members. A complaint would likely come to me

or if someone turns up unexpectedly.
DH: u would not typically b involved as front facing Member of staff (MoS)
KT: yes - n o caseload

DH : What sort of service user contact have would MW have as CEO

DH: can u explain how survivor s come to receive support from ERCC
KT: 2023. 6 sessions or 16 week support . If survivor referred or referring themselves - by phone or email or rape crisis helpline. Support staff manage emails etc

reply by email or phone to say what support we can offer. find out more about person. at that point allocate someone to provide support for short term support

we were closed for q some time bc of no of referrals and long waiting list - b4 then had already started to look at way we managed support bc people waiting for long time for short support

wanted to manage in a diff way. waiting 4-6 months for short support a bit pointless
DH: was there a stage when waiting list 6 months?
KT :y for longer support wait list about a year.

DH: u describe referral of service user.. that would typically be by phone of email... also a secure form on website for referrals

DH: someone allocated - short term 6 sessions?
KT: y
DH: what stage would the 16 week report come into frame
KT: after 6 weeks support can go on waiting list for 16 week or explore if other support would work for them

DH: u mentioned bc of waiting list a change?
KT: y. change in dec 23
J: last month?
KT: no sorry - completely lost date of when we opened the service to referrals
DH: can we think of it by ref to Covid pandemic. lockdown march 2020, not out of lockdown

fully until 2022
KT: sorry, I've literally gone....
DH: it's alright. can i approach in a diff way
KT: just getting dates confused
DH: could it be that matter was changed towards end 22
KT: yes, yes

DH: general process of referral - any change?
KT: referral the same - initial meeting changed - when we get referral now will arrange meeting with that person within a couple of weeks to give space to discuss service we are offereing

to explore things with person, get to know person better- a convo rather than a list of things
can look at risk better than with someone just going on waiting list (WL) can prioritise support for those more vulnerable or with sp needs

DH: what input would service user (SU) have with choice of support worker:
KT: what was imp to them - take into consideration
IF SW offered, if SU unhappy with that SW - we would reallocate after first initial convo

DH: C part of EAS team - would that team fall in your remit? how much day tot day interaction with C.
KT: social contact, when they were in building, safeguarding as in described b4. 1st port of call their LM. Or if not around, would be person roZ had contact with me

when a MoS was sick I worked with Roz then
DH: we know. SW, AB was a support worker within EAS team. came a pt when AB considered themselves to be NB. were you aware
KT: y

DH: what was done re ABS caseload etc
KT: we considered weather suitable for AB to continue working. Had been employed as a woman under the exemption. Was it ok for them to continue their role - let survivors know SW NB?

KT: some communication on this through email. needed to change so staff n to communicating sensitive information through email

*not communicating*
DH: aware of any meetings or discussions by EAS team around how ABs NB identity dealt wiht
KT: yes - brought up in meetings with team leader, discussed and agreed.
DH: were u present
KT: no

DH: EAS team meeting on 31 may 2022 where this was discussed along with other matters affecting team. u were not there
KT: no
DH: what was done to react/deal with this development with AB. what was your understanding how it would be dealt with in late spring 2022

KT: at that pt would n't share info about anyones bio sex - gender history sensitive info particular if trans or NB. ab clear - not want sensitive information shared by staff about another MoS

DH: u involved in these discussions
KT: yes, with senior of that team,
HD: Ken Townsend?
KT: Yes

DH: turning to doc in bundle...do u recognise
Employee policy and notice - recognise
KT: yes
DH: where can staff access
KTL: on drive, given to staff on induction - staff have to read and sign to confirm have
DH: issued to you when u joined ERCC?
KT: yes

DH: no date on policy - can u ascertain when this data protection policy implemented
KT: June 2018. in title of doc
DH: how do you know
KT: it's in the title of doc. also checked board minutes of when doc passed. 4th June 2018

DH: so far as you aware - doc predates your joining ERCC - any change or revision since?
KT: some staff no longer working with us - no other substantial revision. this is still valid

DH: on page 130. we can see a table - has this been subject to any amendment
KT: not that i;m aware of
DH: when u received this policy when you joined do u remember a table
KT: don't remember
DH would any amendments be recorded
KT: y

KT policy would be dated, update would be dated - would have to be passed by board - minuted docs of documents being passed
HD: ty. Investigatory interviews with C want to ask u about

DH: yr exp in disc matters
KT: had not exp. had had training around managing discipline and grievance.
DH: no particular training on Disc and Gr within ERCC
KT: not at that point
DH: subsequently
KT: y aug 22 some training

DH: yr involvement in Disc concerning C - u were note taker 4 some meetings and you were interviewed at some point
KT: y
DH: who asked you to note take?
KT: MW asked me. to support nico who was leading inveastigation

DH: were u involved in deciding to investigate?
KT: no CEO decided.
DH: how did you note take
KT: typed as close an account to convo qs and answer into word doc. shared that with parties in the meeting so they could confirm i had captured everything and to amend - then agreeed

then sent to Nico for investigation
DH: who would u have shown or given access
KT: to Nico and to person being interviewed
DH: turn to p 197 in bundle.. ref to something betw ms towsend and [missed]

DH: couple of pts only - another pt - note of meting btw AB and NC (person conducting disc) - u recollect being present
KT: yes
DH: p. 200. 1st para reads AB has said to an SU I am NB if you would like to work with a woman that s ok.
Do u know which step this would be

KT: would have been when SU had been allocated to AB and when they introduced themselves
DH: how done
KT: often by email poss phone depending on how SU preferred to be contacted

DH: 30th June meeting doc. appears to note names - yr name not included. do u know whose notes those are?
KT: think those my notes - initial version of the notes that were then circulated to check.

DH: u recollect nothing about ABs demeanour during meeting of 30th june. how did they seem to you
KT: they were upset about the whole situation - upset about being in the centre of something , being seen as the problem.

DH: u also took notes of invest meeting with C in July. don't have any particular qs. did u follow your general process u have described
KT: y
DH: 1 more q about investigatory notes. p 209
MW being interviewed -
KT:yes

DH: MW aware of a SU raising an issue?
2 what extent were you aware of SU enquiries about GI of AB
KT: i was aware. SU supported by counselling support worker. SU asked CSW about GI.
DH:did this concern SW other than AB?
KT: y

HD: in may 22 how many NB SWs in the service
KT: 1
DH: that would be AB
KT: y
DH: qs about another meeting - did u have understanding of why was a 2nd interview to take place with C

KT: y. some staff had contacted Nico about some things C had said..
DH: u mentioned worknest - pls don't share any advice from any solicitor. who took advice from work nest?
KT: nico - from an HR advisor - advised best to investigate at same time rather than starting a 2nd proc

..process
DH: did nico tell u
KT: think so - she must have told me then invited me to meeting
DH: were u involved in dec to invite C to a 2nd meeting
KT: not involved at all

DH: how would u describe tone of this meeting?
KT: C was upset about being brought in for another meeting concerned about what she was being asked about..so was, i guess , a difficult meeting

DH: have heard some evidence that after this meeting u and C had discussion about other, supportive witnesses
do u remember?
KT: yes, C asked me whether I could support her on particular area that had been raised
DH: what area
KT: some comments during training

KT: i was happy to give my recollection of that discussion
DH: think u gave an interview on 22nd aug (p231 of bundle)
KT: y
DH: during that interview u made ref to some contemporaneous notes of training meeting

KT: y
DH: also we've heard evidence of certain emails or correspondence received by ERCC filed in a folder called "hate emails" do u have knowledlge
KT:Y
DH what did emails concern
KT: appointment of MW as our CEO

DH: ur involvement in folder creation

KT: folder renamed.. isa tasked with how to respond to emails questioning service and our approach - how to respond to pple asked for support - explain what looks like to try and counter some of the negativity

around our appointing our CEO
DH: do u know who created "hate email" folder
KT: no
DH: what was it renamed to?
KT: don't remember

DH: that was the end of your involvement in disciplinary process..
KT: y
DH: what was yr view of Cs work
KT: reliable member of staff, no issues
DH: Km Townsend's view of Cs work - any knowldege
KT: consistently performing mos

mos= member of staff
DH: matters after conclusion of disc and grievance processes. conscious of time - this will take a bit of time..
J: think we will stop now as it is about lunchtime.
Reconvene at 2pm. reminds witness not to discuss evidence with anyone.
Thank you

That's it for now. Back at 2pm.
Thank you for supporting our work.

@threadreaderapp please unroll