Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are live tweeting from the 2nd morning session of the employment tribunal of R Adams (RA) v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Please see our Substack linked above for abbreviations used and coverage of the sessions so far.

NC: [missing sound at start] ..MWs part in events . We saw from ABs initial response to the the Cs email that AB and MW had been disc this issue. This convo must have taken place between these emails on that day. AB to MW email on 15/6 past 2pm, can you read it?

NC: That's quite an apologetic email?
?: It must have been clear [missed]
KM: I dont agree, it must have been challenging w/out warning
NC: Re further email, AB says [process making me feel ashamed and unconfident] A whole week after the enquiry she feels the org hasnt solved

the problem
KM: Yes
NC: She feels let down by the org?
KM: Too broad to say that about the whole org but yes, unhappy re the incident
NC: Email MW to AB at 18.22 [reads how are you, a diff convo and must have been difficult week] Saying how hard it had been?
KM Dont agree w word

KM hurt, but cld be another
NC MW felt guilty, that's clear?
KM I cant answer
NC But MW isn't hear which is why I'm asking you. Reads I'm sorry I made you feel that way, just checking in. AB answers It's been difficult, painful and hearing what a problem I am for the centre

and network] So very distressed by the convo.
NC I'm sorry, I dont want u to feel y're the problem. So MW feely guilty
KM She's feeling respon for the impact of the convo
NC She gives impression that likely to be sanctioned [reads from email]
KM Dont think its clear. Just taken

KM seriously. Doesnt imply a disc or anything like that
NC: Clear that MW is defecting blame for hurt AB expressing away from MW and org onto the C?
KM I dont agree with that
NC: Another email from 22/6, more apology from MW [reads it's humiliating what RA has done...]

NC: Te trans inclusion training [reads MW disc transphobia existing in the org]
KM I dont agree that saying is specifically RA
NC I recog your dread re the training and it might be hard. It's about RA and prepping the trainer for a non believer
KM I dont agree. the prep was about

KM a mixed staff team incl NB ppl.
NC It's humiliating and no contact. MW is encouraging AB to feel vulnerable and catstrophise
KM No
NC There's a pattern of exag the threat to T ppl who dont agree w these beliefs generally isnt there?
KM [sounds]
NC WE see fanning the flames and

encouraging vulnerability
KM I dont agree.
NC When protest started re appoint of Wridul, were no threats [eg piss on doorstep, throwing paint]
KM No. Was a lot of dissent but no threats of violence
NC And no threats of violence?
KM No
NC despite this, no protests?
KM No

NC But response was hysterical. Bomb proof letter box?
KM we had a police safety check. Not regarded as hysterical
NC Similar to Mridul's parallel w catastrophising and the org's response
KM I dont think they're linked and I donr feel our response was exagerated

NC Reasonable from email that MR seeking to build a case against the C
KM If she was unhappy w orgs responses they could complain
NC MW was deflecting blame from AB to RA and seizing on the opportunity to remove a dissenting employee
KM I disagree. Was looking at impact of

interactions. No attempt to stir up anything against the C.
NC Whether that's the correct inference, its against the C, a detriment, to have her speak that way to a colleague
KM Its about actions and no the indiv
NC MW hints mtg of 7/7 mtg will be difficult cos of Cs input into

it.
KM I dont agree
NC Y'd expect C to feel is problematic
KM [missed]
NC Never a disc against MW about how to respond to emails
KM No
NC Nothing about jumping on supposed transphobia
KM I dont think jumped to conclusions
NC Wld disc proceedings be in order?
KM Not my remit

NC Can u agree with me that if an employee is found to have discrim on a PC against a colleague y'd expect a disciplinary
KM It wld have to be acted on if found
NC For any PC
KM It wld be investigated
NC But there's been no Ix at ERCC?
KM We dont think discrim has happened

[above was referring to discrimination against RA on grounds of GC belief]
NC: You disagree the CEO was driving the process. 4th Jan email he says MW played no role in the Ix or process so wont call as a witness. You're confident this is the case?
KM: Yes

NC: Looking at txt msgs, [reads checking in re gender following exchange with KT. You respond that y'd been v clear] So y're prompting KT that she's been clear in her instructions?
KM No
NC [reads I was v surprised by that email...KT continues re explaining to Nico and MW

NC: Moving to [page] [confusion re finding correct bundle pages]
NC: Email 20/12 from solicitor about meeting on 17/6 of debrief and name change for Kim to share impact on her and how managing. Nothing about an Ix or discipl
KM Yes. No, I didnt attend the mtg

NC: [reading about what had happened afterwards and 'head popping off 'comment. The Cs defiance of an instruction and what they shld do]
KM I wasnt there so cant say
NC No attendees are giving evidence are they?
KM No
NC Email from Elaine Cameron, who recommends

NC training on disc process, informing on next steps, note taking, learning properly learned, language used - unhelpful and unawarrented. What language does this refer to?
KM I dont know. I wasnt part of this process
NC: Read the section on decisions and lack of objectivity

NC: The recommendation re language used and an apology to the C, EC is suggesting the R should apologise for saying the C was transphobic
KM: I see there wasnt a ref to the C being transphobic in the processes so the word shldnt have been used in the grievance letter

NC: Specific shldnt have used t'phobia and no evidence that transphobia occured. Implication that R shld apologise for this use
KM Yes
NC: Ty. What has been implimented?
KM Disc and grievance policies reviewed and training for trustees and mgmt re disc processes, incl acas. Note

KM taking training. But no apology was made and I'm sorry this didnt happen
NC Was an apology for the delay?
KM No apology given to the C for the language. I think it got lost in attempts to settle before court
NC: The grievance outcome dated 6/2. Acas certificate..oh, my mistake

NC: [new page] C's email of 17/3 when still off sick saying answer these Qs so I feel safe enough to return. Sets out: guarantee that MW is told no transphobia found and cannot say that. Nico gets the same message that no t'phobic. And clear guidance re how to respond to SUs

NC The guidance doesnt cover re Qs about sex rather than GI. U were aksed to do this 3rd point. How were u to do this?
KM My memory is Katie H responded to RA who contacted Kim. May have referred RA to operational staff, which came to me and I responded to RA

NC Our guidance remains the same and say we dont respond beyond we dont employ men. What if a SU isnt happy w this and is passed onto you, wld yr response be I wont tell u the sex of a worker. That's all yr response?
KM Yes. I wld meet them and discuss their concerns and see if

KM: I cld reassure without disclosing bio sex or gender history. Try to have an open dialogue w them
NC: You didnt tell RA that at no point wld a SU wanting to know bio sex of their SW....Um, sorry...want to take instructions. It want ever spelt out the SU wld still never get

reassurance they'd never have to sit w a male
KM I didnt answer that and didnt intend to be oblique but was responding re her role
NC: I want to suggest u are directing the C to contrib to gaslighting of a vulnerable client gp
KM I disagree
NC U shldnt expect a worker to tolerate

this if they had a conscience?
KM I disagree
NC re the 60 yr old and BP discussed earlier who was turned away. Did this happen?
KM I dont know the details of that SU
NC Wld u do that now?
KM The maj of our services are aimed at those who've already had support in a therapy space

KM We assess new ppl to make sure they shld be part of a wider group. So they'd already be part of our support already
NC: Kim passed on the query to me (email of 17/3)
KM: I didnt see the email. The C msg to Kim and followed up by email, and then came to me. Mirin? and Katie

NC So this was passed on. U didnt see that email?
MK I dont remember and cant see the email
NC Apologies, wrong email...looking at Q3 and KH's response to you. Nobody reassured RA that no evidence she was transphobic?
KM I dont know, I wasnt involved

NC: That vague response only saying there are no men at the centre made it impossible for RA to remain at ERCC?
KM: I didn't feel that and I was surprised by the Cs response and I wasn't expecting the C to resign.
NC: I have 2 more sections to cover so this would be a good time

NC: to stop.
J: I agree. We'll adjourn until 2pm.

Court adjourned.

@threadreaderapp unroll