Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly be live tweeting the 2nd morning session of the employment tribunal of R Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

Please see our Substack in our bio for further details and coverage of this case.

NC: Talking about language used [hate email folder], that's you dismissing the emails as hateful
MS: Yes
NC: And you stand by that?
MS: Yes
NC: Going through some of the griev, some of the points, starting w point 6. A complaint summarised as the culture is contempt of GC beliefs

NC: Is that a fair summary of that {organisational culture]? Is that the complaint?
MS: Yes
NC: Outcome of griev says - you dont touch on this in yr outcome
MS No
NC Why not?
MS She'd had the opportunity to discuss already
NC But it's s serious complaints re bigots and fascists

NC didnt it merit an answer?
MS I'd given her the opp to discuss our inclusion policy and further opps
NC This was enough?
MS Yes
NC: about the Ix, staff were encouraged to complain, used loaded Qs in an attempt to sack me, many egs of this

NC: U touch on this, in a short paragraph. U only discuss the interview w the C but no other indivs. It's an inadequate response to that complaint isnt it?
MS: Can u repeat the Q please? [repeats] I reviewed all the interviews of e'one and they were the same. So didn't consider

MS: that Nico's Qs were loaded.
NC: [another page] Re Exchange about TM using mens toilets and interview w RA also mentioning something. Shld mean RA. Confusion about initials. AC is continuing re RA and toilets. Nico says does this mean RA sis saying TM are actually women?

NC: She's trying to flush out her saying that TM are actually women? It's quite a leap isnt it, to go to this forbidden belief?
MS: She's just clarifying
NC: she's prompting AC to give evid of heresy
MS: I dont see it like that
NC Again, LS doesnt think intentions are overt and

NC is a mismatch of views. A hidden meaning of subltle comments which might be due to her training in NVC. Naming t'phobia as a label to LS? She's looking for this?
MS I see it as Nico clarifying. Not helpful to use t'phobia
NC [reads re missing nuance] Looks like NCi trying to

build a case?
MS: She's just clarifying
NC: On point 9, the C says a parallel incident wasnt investigated so v different actions taken. You recall that?
MS Yes
NC Do u agree that confidentiality of SUs should be 2nd nature at a RCC?
MS Yes

NC: Email 22/5/21 to staff team re mtg and cis man given H&N sessions. we disagree and want to challenge this - giving services to a man.
MS Yes, a man
NC; We see long email From MW responding and clear MW doesnt like being challenged in this way

NC: [reads out about MWs anger over this and response]
NC: Some of this is redacted, presumably is about whitewashing an ?error. Is MW identifying someone as a survivor of SV. Isnt that an error in confidentiality of another person, very troubling isnt it?

NC: Using this eg. Is outing the person as a survivor. Isnt that totally unacceptable?
MS I agree. It shldnt have been shared or the best way to put it
NC Its completely unacceptable isnt it? Disclosur was unacceptable.
MS I think...I disagree
NC A bit unacceptable?

MS Not the best forum to share
NC It shldnt have been released at all?
MS Yes
NC At 1.2, RA asked why senior manager hadnt had anything happen for a similar issue. U defended it?
MS No, was comparing humiliation to breaching confidentiality potentially

MS There's no breach of confid as per policy as applies to SU and it's someone close to her so it isnt data from ERCC. RAs issue is different and notthing to do w RAs case.
NC In truth RA didnt say anything others didnt know
MS She disclosed confid info and didnt follow orders

MS These are v different
NC So yr saying what MW did was ok?
MS No, she shldnt have shared it was her own personal info...
NC But it wasnt {DH interjects]
NC This is MW talking about a family member, shld they not keep this private?

MS No, is different as not under the RCCs policies
NC But is a terrible eg of behaviour?
MS She was trusting her team and expressing her feelings with them. maybe not approp but she beleieved she cld share these things
NC But u treat it as their confid info and not your own?

NC It's up to the other person even if she trusts them?
MS bUt its her info, about a family member she's close to
NC No disc action from this was there?
MS No
NC And if you or anyone else had said informally dont do this again, nobody did this?

MS Am trying to maintain confiden and e'one deserves that and I'd rather not sicuss
NC But this is important. MW did something much more serious and no consequences, but RA did have consequences. Were there any formal conseq for MW?
MS Is private to MW but I did have a chat with

her
NC U told her it was unacceptable and shldnt happen again?
MS No, we talked about how to comm w her staff and the impact of what she shares can have on ppl, and how these shld happen. She didnt breach the data breach or confid policies

NC The truth is you were too in awe of MW to do your job?
MS No
NC [another doc ] In email MW tells AB what RA has done is humiliating. This is before the Ix
MS Yes
NC U dont see a problem
MS She removed herself from the Ix and can see she might have bias against those who

might be t'phobic
NC But she's expressed a conclusion of humiliation and doing wrong to a collegaue
MS Yes
NC Isnt that a problem?
MS She's just expressing feelings. We have a process of a separate Ix.
NC But she's pre-judged as CEO? Its problematic
MS NCi is a strong woman

NC Doesnt this encourage AB to think RA a threat?
MS Clear that humiliated and found emails violent so can see why no comms if thats how AB felt
NC Didnt strike u that violent & humil was an exagerating?
MS We sh;dnt invalidate her feelings. AB said plse remove me from convo

MS RA went back in another email after being told AB did not want to be involved in the convo. RA didn't follow a clear boundary set by AB.
NC [reads C and AB emails about how AB is and a gentle email] Is this gentle and apologetic? Looking for a dialogue
MS Yes, to both

NC But ABs response isnt gentle?
MS But she'd said she didnt want to talk about it
NC Not in a round robin, which isnt leave me alone and I donr tant to speak to you
MS It means I dont want to discuss topic now. I wld have done the same. This isnt just an apology but an

invite to a discussion.
NC Is that a frightening thing?
MS Yes, if u dont know how they feel about you
NC Suppose RA on receiving this brutal snub and slap down, had put in a complaint and gone off sick. Wld AB have had a Ix or disc process against them?

MS We would have Ix it as we take all B&H allegations seriously
NC MW says [another doc] t'phobia exists in our org. Does this imply it rests in RA?
MS MW believed RAs comms were t'phobic but not necessarily RA herself.
NC Implic it is in Roz - where t'phobia exists

MS [missed]
NC Missing MW from a discussion as upsetting. as a source of trauma for MW and AB?
MS AB being acknow by MW as dreading training
NC MW cannot engage calmly w the impact of T policy and dissent is seen as sources of trauma [reads re dreading the training and not goin

MS Is talking about dread AB is feeling
NC So dreading discuss and disagreement is acceptable?
MS Talking about GC beliefs at ERCC is v difficult, and ppl doesnt like diff convos
NC But is core to a CEO job?
MS Yes but
NC Is setting an eg and not wanting to go. Its a

terrible eg for a young employee
MS she didnt want to go
NC WE see this same avoidance by non attendance of MW. Why isnt here do u know?
MS No. MW isnt part of the Ix so shldnt be here
NC The board makes decis about llitigation?
MS Yes
NC We think mW is v involved in event

and should be here. Did you know this had been suggested by RAs legal team?
MS No, [mentions Nico]
NC Who also isn't here. Did you ask MW to come to tribunal?
MS No
NC [reads re grievance and MSs letter - point 10 - that's where u deal w this complaint?
MS Y
NC But it

doesnt deal with it does it? Encouraging AB to feel threatened and fuel on fire
MS I dont see it that way. RA feels MW was biased. Yes, was biased so was outside of the Ix. It didnt matter how MW felt. The disc was run by the board.

NC Point 11 covers delays and lack of care of RA> You dont cover the lack of comms and concern?
MS No, she had a budget for wellbeing and supervision, well being no, and RA had a diff sitn w her sister and cld work from their to help her

NC [Slack posts] Have u seen these before?
MS Yes
NC The ref to Sonia Sodha and LGB Alliance. Do u know who she is? [reads tweet]
MS No I dont know
NC She's a Guardian leader writer, knowing that it's clear that t'phobe who will die out here means ppl who have GC beleifs

NC They're the same as t'phobia
MS No
NC Give me an eg between the 2 - something not t'phobic that is GC
MS Prob not
NC [explains again]
MS Prob not. T'phobia is hate towards T ppl. GC is about sex and gender and reductionist to say are samr thing

Nc Saying TW are biol male is t'phobic?
MS Yes
NC Lookin at Slack, do u know GC beleifs are protected under EA?
MS Yes
NC So they're protected by a PC
MS Yes
NC Is there any other gp u cld say this about [hope they die soon, poison etc] that wld be acceptable to say this?

MS No
NC U cldnt write about disabled pll etc that what they write is poison. This wld be a disc matter wldnt it?
MS I dont know. Shld discuss context and what they mean. Isnt attacking anyone in partic. Is talking about how they feel about t'phobia

NC This is bullying, but u dont even cover in yr letter
MS They're not referring to RA directly
NC But RA likely to see and close to 15/6 so reasobale inference to make RA as feeling hated
MS Only if she IDs as a transphobe
NC But u all know she has GC Beliefs

MS RA can identify with that, it's her prerogative to do that.
J can we keep going as concerned re the afternoon?
NC I don't have as long a cross examination this afternoon
J in that case we'll break now.

Court adjourned

@threadreaderapp unroll