Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning; welcome to day 7 of the case of Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. You can read about the case, including coverage of previous days' hearings, on our Substack page tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edi…

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 today's hearing to begin at 10.00am, to hear the evidence of Miren Sagues (a Board member of ERCC).

Our objective in live tweeting is to share proceedings fairly without bias or prejudice in service of #openjustice. Our live tweet stream is not a perfect stenographic record such as might be provided by a court reporter and we apologise for any omissions or inaccuracies.

Previous witnesses:
The claimant, and
MR - Mairi Rosko (Board member of R)
KM - Katy McTernan (a member of R’s senior management)
The final witness after Ms Sagues will be
KH - Katie Horsburgh (Board member of R)

You can find a list of other abbreviations on our Substack page tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edi…

[We are still waiting for the public hearing to begin]

[The livestream has begun, and we are waiting for the Judge to enter the court. I have sound but no video at present, and apologise in advance if this causes any misattribution of speakers]

J: Good morning. Any preliminary matters?
DH: Just that the WS are here [I think, is handing them round]

J: [Administers affirmation to Miren Sagues MS]

DH: [identifies MS to the court - full name, age, address]
DH: [takes MS through confirming and swearing to her written witness statement]

DH: Is English your first language?
MS: No, Spanish.

NC: Good morning Ms Sagues.
NC: The role of the board is to ensure the org does right by its users and staff, and obeys the law?
MS: Yes
NC: And to make sure you stick to core principles?
MS: Yes

NC: And the board, the trustees, job is to be the conscience of the organisation, the moral principals?
MS: Yes

NC: Your statement says you were informed about the hearing [re C] - asked by MW?
MS: Yes
NC: You say you were told 2 other board members would be needed. Told by MW?
MS: Yes

NC: Clear that MW was all over the process - controlling and directing.
MS: No. MW msgd me on whatsapp and said chair had asked me to identify 2 other board members. Which I did. Do not consider MW controlling the situation.

NC: Your WS says MW told you was on phone to AB when email came in [think, from C]
MS: Yes [missed]

NC: You read your statement carefully? You are saying MW told you on the phone to something *else* with AB, when email about AB came in?
MS: Yes, discussing something else.

NC: [ref to bundle] This is the grievance decision, your griev decision. Last para. You say MW by coincidence happened to be on phone to AB when email from RA came in, and was able to offer support on the spot. This is as you have said - discussing something else.

NC: But a bit later here - you say corroborated by email sent by AB, says "linking in MW because were just talking about this issue". Which is the opposite of 'something else'

MS: [explains further] was about something else
NC: But that's not clear from this. Mention of emotional support, when email received. Let's look at sequence of emails.

NC: You read these at the time?
MS: Yes
NC so at ?12.53 MW emails AB "are you free for quick discuss?" at ?14.15 MW emails AB "thank you for talking to me". Clear that MW and AB have spoken and MW now following up
MS: yes

NC: So this email [just read but not aloud] - very clear discussion had been re how to respond to service users Qs about AB's identity.
MS: Talking about action to take going forward.

NC: Not my Q - which was, clear the discussion had been about responding to users re AB. Which is not 'something else'.
MS: But not talking about RA email
NC: Ofc. It had not been sent yet.
MS: No

NC: So MW&AB were discussing the situation, and MW switched to emotional support when email came in. I put to you that MW account to you was misleading.
MS: Disagree. Talking about something else, then email comes.

NC: Your WS says you asked MW if had been involved in the IX, MW says no, not involved, had not seen docs etc. That's not a very good fit is it with this, earlier in your WS, where you say CEO let you know what outcome re actions was? MW was keeping a close eye?

MS: As convenor I needed to know there was a formal IX going on - so CEO had to tell me - can you repeat the Q?
NC: Am saying, inconsistency re MW saying not involved and then MW saying had seen report.

MS: [explains but speaks very fast - confirms believed MW not involved]
NC: Why MW at all? Why not Nico?
MS: I was new then - not familiar with structures, comms channels.

NC: So you were new, and doing what you understood was the usual way, the way the CEO did things?
MS: Yes, at the time, it's a bit different now.

NC: Not saying you were at fault but looking back wd you agree MW should not have been involved at all, you shd have said go thru Nico?
MS: Would not say that really no
NC: MW was running things.
MS: Disagree - was Nico, Nico had the discussions with HR consultants, running it.

NC: Here we see MW saying not involved and asking not to be, bcs as a TW wd find it inappropriate. We see MW claiming to be stepping back and claiming victim status. Fair to say?
MS: No, is saying as had seen AB's reaction so is withdrawing.

NC: MW is emphasising to you MW's own feelings, claiming victim?
MS: No, genuine reasons.
NC: MW is dominant figure in ERCC
MS: I see MW enabling all to do their roles, my experience of working with MW

NC: You mentioned MW respecting people's boundaries. MW position is that biological sex is irrelevant even in a RC setting. That staff, users, can only know/care about is gender identity. Sex irrelevant.
MS: That is not MW position is ERCC position, we are trans inclusive

MS: We recognise trans people have ownership of their own identity, does not take away from staff or users

NC: Court has heard that policy is if a SU says I would not be OK seeing a man, a male, the service will not promise to respect that.
MS: Yes they will bcs no men working at ERCC.

NC: 'No men' - for anyone who thinks that a man who wishes he were a woman, who says he is, is a woman, that TWAW for all purposes - true for them. But - you do know not everyone believes that? Quite a lot of people?
MS: Some ppls do, some not.

NC: Which do you think most people think? Sex, or clothes and paperwork?
MS: Don't know numbers.
NC: Do you think one view is right and one wrong?
MS: I don't - it matters - can you repeat Q?

NC: Are you saying one perspective is right and one wrong, or are they equal status?
MS: ERCC position is TWAW.
NC: ERCC have campaigned that approach
MS: Don't think 'campaign'

NC: So you tell SUs that they will see a woman - but that might mean a male person.
MS: Would see a woman.
NC: They might not think so.
MS: That is policy, would see a woman.

NC: You tell SUs they will see a woman meaning what ERCC mean by a woman, not what the SU means by a woman.
MS: No SU would be able to choose to work with counsellor or not.

NC: But we heard yesterday that ERCC would never disclose sex of counsellor.
MS: If they ask for a woman they will see a woman. No men at ERCC
NC: But that's not true - there is MW
MS: ERCC does not employ any men.

NC: This goes to what you asserted, that MW respects people's boundaries. Do you genuinely think that assuring SU ERCC is only women even tho you know what they mean, is that respecting boundaries?
MS Don't understand how ERCC position - it's v clear - is not respecting boundary

NC: Moving on, looking at support offered to RA duing process. Nobody checking on her.
MS: Everyone at ERCC has access to well-being budget -
NC: Not my Q. You don't know she had anyone checking on her, or telling her re budget
MS: No, but everyone had this access

NC: Mtg when RA invited to discuss 'gross misconduct'. You say, talked to Worknest and were told that was a mistake by one of their apprentices and shd be corrected to 'misconduct'.

NC: This letter is the one sent 18/9 - we see 2 misconduct, one gross. Is it your understanding the word 'gross' is the only mistake?
MS: Yes - had been told it was an admin error.
NC: As a typo almost.

MS: I know wd have been upsetting to RA and I apologised to her, but it was corrected later.

NC: This section here says that if allegations are found the consequences cd be XYZ. It includes re 'gross' misconduct, cd be dismissal without notice.

NC: So that should be removed in later version - let's look at it - says 3xmisconduct, no gross - and that part re consequences of gross also removed.
MS: Yes I see this.

NC: So it wasn't just 'gross' slipped in as a typo was it? Someone wrote a section about the consequences. There was a *decision* to include 'gross'
MS: I was told it had been an error.

NC: We heard from Mairi Rosko that the decisions came from ERCC and were approved by Worknest but that later legal advice was taken and the 'gross' removed. Is that not more likely?

MS: not necessarily - if I were apprentice writing a letter I would put things in in both places
NC: I am suggesting that that is less likely than that between 12-18 September there was dispute within ERCC about this and it was eventually removed.

MS: I don't know any converstations that happened, was not involved [have missed a follow up Q & A here]

NC: moving on. You wrote this document
MS: Yes
NC: Did anyone do a first draft for you
MS: No. Was giving an HR template, but I wrote it all.
NC: You have re-read for this hearing?
MS: Yes

NC: If we turn up alongside this the claimant's grievance. Keep both docs easy to find pls?
MS: Yes
NC: This is letter sent by C, with para numbers etc.

NC: You're aware C appealed the grievance outcome, heard by Elaine Cameron, partly upheld esp description of C as transphobic. EC felt language used had been unfair and unhelpful
MS: She said unhelpful yes

NC: We can infer 'unhelpful' surely, bcs EC recommended ERCC shd apologise for it to C. [page ref]
EC says [reads out - no evidence anything transphobic occurred, language unhelpful]
MS: Yes agree re language unhelpful

NC: And here EC says apologise to RA for length of process, and use of 'transphobic'. You know no apology made?
MS: I didn't hear of recommendations then.
NC: Board not given copy of appeal outcome? No? should you not have asked for it?

MS: When it finished I handed over to Elaine, so didn't see any of the rest of it until later.
NC: But surely point of a grievance process is to find out whether a staff member has been mistreated - whether org has done anything wrong?
MS: Yes

J [asks viewer to mute after an interjection]

NC: End of griev process is, knowedge of whether org has done wrong, and what needs to happen if so? Surely that's exactly the sort of thing the board should know about?
MS: But process hadn't finished.
NC: Grievance process had.
MS: Waiting for end of disciplinary process.

MS: We wd have discussed all together when all finished.
NC: And did you?
MS: Still not finished bcs hear we are at tribunal. We are discussing next week.

NC: You won't have tribunal findings next week.
NC: You are saying, nothing every finished so there was never right moment for board to consider it all and decided if anything needed?
MS: [missed]

[Apologies - I have missed a minute or two]
NC: Board job, to investigate whether RA had been called 'transphobic',
MS: EC did not uphold all of RA appeal.

NC: Are you saying that bcs disciplinary process had veered away from alleging 'transphobic', board had no need to look into it?
MS: No am saying it was for the disc panel to continue its works, RA was saying discrimination re belief but disc panel had decided wd not be focussing

MS: on belief but on actions, so I determined that panel had taken EC report into account.

NC: Can you explain why no apology ever given re use of 'transphobia' as recommended by EC?
MS: No
NC: When did EC leave ERCC?
MS June 2023 I think

NC: Did EC leave bcs had broken ranks?
MS: No - she got another job, no time to volunteer any more

NC: At end of process RA had been given guidance what not to say re colleagues, but did not feel that was enough. You agree it's OK to question if employer gives an answer makes no sense?
MS: Yes

NC: If instruction seems to be immoral?
MS: Yes

NC: And the guidance is, can't disclose sex of worker but can say "no men at centre".
MS: Yes
NC: But MW works at the centre. So for anyone who thinks man refers to sex, a man does work at the centre
MS: No bcs MW is a woman. No men at the centre.

NC: I'm not asking *you* to agree a man does, I'm asking if you can see that to anyone that thinks man = sex, not clothing or whatever, a man *does* work at the centre.
MS: Yes

NC: Can you think of a reason why a rape victim might think the sex of their worker is an important thing.
MS: Yes, there can be many things.
NC: Anything to do with fact that vast majority of sexual offences committed by males?
MS Yes agree male violence.

NC: Victims will almost always have been attacked by a man - male victims as well as female victims
MS: Yes

NC: So what RA is hearing is, you cannot tell a victim this important information re a worker, but you can say 'no men'
MS: Can see why Roz Q, but a non-binary person is not a man or a woman, and not OK to mention NB, so, say no men.

MS: Roz was given an instruction, and AB did not want to discuss it, so Roz's perseverance hurt AB. This is my understanding of what happened.

NC: Are you saying AB does not have a sex?
MS: AB non binary, and our policy says NB = does not identify with binary either M or F
NC: Am not asking re identity, but re sex. Might AB get ovarian cancer, or prostate cancer?

NC: Breast or ovarian cancer?
MS: Don't know medical history but re AB wd say breast.
NC: AB cannot get prostate cancer.
MS No comment.

NC: What is Spanish for non-binary?
MS: No binaria.
NC: And the masculine?
MS: No binario.
[Missed a bit of explanation from MS re this]

NC: If it were literally true that no men - per biological sex - worked at the centre, you would be able to not disclose the sex of any worker bcs you'd be able to say all worker are female?
MS: Yes

NC: So if you say to someone that thinks in terms of sex that there are no men, they will think it means all female.
MS: Yes
NC: But when people *know* that MW works there, it means that if you say 'no men' that is indicating people can't trust you?
MS: No, bcs no men.

NC: And any dissent from TWAW will be treated as bigotry won't it?
MS: DIsagree, SUs will not be looking for a political debate but for support.
NC: Ofc the last thing wd want is politicial debate. But some may be terrified in case they see man,

NC: So it's cruel isn't it not to give them that reassurance?
MS: ERCC is very clear it is trans inclusive

NC: One thing about survivors, they find v hard to state own needs?
MS: Yes
NC: And MW has called ppl who don't think TWAW bigots.
MS Don't know.
NC: Podcast?
MS don't know

NC: Telling ppl something they know to be a lie - that there are no men - is a horrible thing to do to someone coming for help with rape trauma.
MS: You suggest everyone thinks like that.

NC: No, some people. Is that not enough. ERCC is saying to those ppl "you are a bigot, go away"
MS: No, we explain that we are transinclusive service and that is what we do

NC: [new page ref] Email 11/8/21 from RA fwding email to support account, RA recommends careful reading. Have you seen this?
MS: I think it's in the bundle
NC: Not read at the time?
MS No

NC: Pls read the email [all do - I think it's quite long]

[they are still reading]

NC: Can you agree strength of writer's feelings is not surprising. Expresses v strong feelings re what MW has said, and about appointment. Can you agree that given her background, not surprising she feels strongly?

MS Background as counsellor?
NC: No of sexual abues.
MS: I can see she has strong feelings re that.

NC: Does she say anything incorrect about MW, the organisation?
MS: I see someone processing their emotions, lots to unpack.

NC: She says, my trauma 15 years old but cd not be near my husband last night. As humans we know ppl sex. How can you say to s/o like me, you can't know you won't see a male and if I object I'm a bigot?

NC: That is ERCC policy isn't it?
MS: It is her view of the policy, but, I don't know.
NC: You know emails like this filed as 'hate emails', for months.
MS: Yes

NC: Is there anything hateful about this email?
MS: I think there is misunderstanding of transgender umbrella here.
NC: Hateful?
MS: Yes, criticising CEO on podcast.
NC: That's hateful?

MS: Criticising ERCC too. Not having understanding of trans inclusion.
NC: You as board member, as org conscience, happy to tell tribunal you agree this should have been filed as 'hate email'?

MS: I don't know if any where hateful, other protected characteristics maybe, would have to know more, this was before my time.

NC: Filing as 'hate email' is expression of contempt for the writers?
MS: Don't understand?
NC: Contempt? Filing indicates emails can just be dumped and ignored?
MS: Don't know.

NC: This might be good time for a break?

J: Yes. We will come back at 11.55

[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll