Thread by @tribunaltweets

Greetings and welcome to the afternoon session of the employment tribunal: Mrs A Islam-Wright vs Arts Council England and Craig Ashcroft. #OpenJustice

1.30PM Start.

Find info and previous reporting here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mrs-a-islam-…

Abbreviations

AIW or C - Afreena Islam-Wright, the Claimant
ACE or R - Arts Council England, the respondent
J - Judge, Mr R McDonald

P - either of 2 Panel members, Ms S Howarth & Ms V Worthington

CA: Craig Ashcroft - Snr Human Resources Business Partner at ACE -also Respondent

JF - Jack Feeny, counsel for both respondents (ACE & CA)

AA - Abayomi Alemoru, counsel for AIW/C

Witnesses for the Respondents:

KC - Karen Coundon, Senior HR Partner at ACE
JB - Jane Beardsworth, Senior Relationship Manager at ACE

Other
DI - Disciplinary Investigation
DH - Disciplinary Hearing
LM - Line Manager
GC - Gender Critical
HR - Human Resources

This morning, claimant Mrs A Islam-Wright gave evidence, and we expect Respondent and Senior Human Resources Partner at ACE, Craig Ashcroft, to give evidence this afternoon.
#OpenJustice

Court in session [13.37]

[No camera currently so I cannotbsee the proceedings. CA is being taken through affirmation re his evidence. JF confirms CA Witness Statement]
JF: U wanted to make a change to para 53
CA: Yes a change to date, 5th Sept To 12th Sept

J: I may ask u to slow down as taking notes so we have accurate acount. We will have break mid afternoon. Thank you
AA: Good afternoon.
CA: Good afternoon
AA: as I understand it is u say u instigated disciplinary proceedings against AIW not because of signing but what she said in

Doing so?
CA: not quite. It was the statements themselves rather than signing petition that was cause for concern
AA: Let me clarify. If it wasn't u who instigated, who did?
CA: we work as HR dept and was concerned. I was annual leave week after petition posted and on return I

Liased with Ian Matthews
AA: Who made decision?
CA: General consensus.
AA: are u saying decision to commence DP in C's case was u and Mr Matthews (IM)?
CA: Wasn't just my opinion IM and Alex Howard reviewed and concurred with me category A was most serious and needed investig

AA: Joint decision?
CA: yes
AA: offences against GC colleagues and that justified bringing proceedings? Unacceptable behaviour in ur org yes?
CA: to be accurate, the reason AIW was subject to investigation was reasons set
AA: Shed acted in a way unacceptable to GC individuals?

CA: Issues are at top of bundle. Contravention of Dignity at work policy.
AA: GC protection
CA: insubordination to undermine colleague
AA: Beacuse of GC?

CA: Other was harassment based on PC of belief
AA: GC?
CA: yes
AA: they're the reasons for instigation of proceedings. U also say that AIW didn't commit a protected act
CA: yes
AA: Re breaches to constructive dismissal u say that's not breach of contract?
CA: correct

AA: I think in terms of principle, any disciplinary case, to consider case fairly u have to look at (missed)
CA: yes to ensure that case has answered an investigation process

AA: it's a balancing process. Grateful we're on same page. It's important in context that one doesn't prejudge. Uncontroversial?
CA: yes
AA: So one must ensure they establish what happened in order to make sure they capture key facts and circumstances relevant?
CA: yes

AA: I pit it to u that u didn't do that
CA: there's no evidence to say that I didn't.
AA: OK let's go for it. So u clearly identify the drop in as relevant background for facts and circumstances of case?
CA: drop in 14th April?
AA: yes

AA: so drop in was relevant fact that formed the genesis of the case. Just looking at para 10
CA: context of how petition came about
AA: good same page. So in that case u knew there was a convo and that drop in and grant to LGBA, grant went to them but not directly made by ACE

AA: it was LCF
CA: ACE community forum and that fund made that decision
AA: so community forum thanks. When considering how things unfolded in dropnin, it was apparant that the common perception publicly was that ACE was suffiently associated to that grant

CA: vocal opinion was high association but that was ill informed
AA: main debate that resulted with drop in?
CA: most vocal
AA: it wouldn't surprise u that ppl say ACE have done this re grant, not surpising people thought ACE?
CA: always surprises me when ppl reach conclusions

That are erroneous.
AA: regrettable ppl don't always engage in info. Reality of life.
CA: sometimes.
AA: before the drop in the overwhelming concern expressed by ppl who delved into debate, partic colleagues within ACE, was that money went to transphobic anti trans org? Agree?

CA: may have been that perception
AA: I'm not saying that's correct I'm asking what u understood perception was and u thought that was it?
CA: common perception yes.

AA: I think from what I can see of the chat that emerged as the drop in was going on that there were a minority of voices who effectively defended the granting of that money to LGB bc they questioned or denied LGB could be or should be regarded as anti trans?
CA: correct

AA: So is it far to say re that the majority (if I may) as far as u understand took issue with those colleagues who were defending LGBA and grant made to it?
CA: don't agree as over 200 ppl on all and only small portion made comments

AA: So majority did take issue bit whether that was overall u don't know.
CA: correct
AA: Again that's all part if the case that u and I are concerned about which is AIW. I put it to u that in context of AIW case that some consideration of the substance and nature and concerns

And debate that took place in drop in, that's the underlying platform for everything that happens next?
CA: Disagree it was her comments that undermined ACe. [Gives analogy about colleagues talking about Winston Churchill and disagreeing]

AA: Restore the grievance that was circulated around 11th May
CA: I would not characterise as grievance as they're defined in our policy and it wouldn't have met those terms
AA: I'll rephrase. In context of email circulated that stated on face of it that individual circulating

publicised it as a grievance. The genesis for it was what was heard from dissenting voices during drop in. Fair?
CA: agree.
AA: About senior members, u have it in front of u and expressing homophobic and anti trans views. It asked in effect for ACE to do something about that?

CA: No request rlspecifically but list of issues bit nor articulated
AA: Is it not saying ACe must deal with it?
CA: agree
AA: the union at some point subsequently had prevailed upon members of senior management about what happed at drop in. Look at 104.

AA: We have email from Hughie Walker, (HW) union rep?
CA: yes. HW has also acted in some of our staff groups.
AA: dual role?
CA: correct
AA: HW is referring to drop in. Have a read. Described as 'trauma fest' [reads 'consider whole incident and what led to it']

AA: [reads 'some colleagues feel failed due to PC']
He's referring to PC of transgender?
CA: I don't know
AA: goes on to say 'ignorance and thoughtlessness can't be a defence'. There's HW effectively saying we have a complaint about what's happening in SCE can u deal with it

Dignity at work grievance policy. Do u have knowledge if that request was taken up?
CA: no.
AA: if u were carrying out proper investigation I'd assume you'd think that's something you'd get to know
CA: that relies on number of assumptions.

J: We are decideling if victimisation and if employer dealt with disciplinary investigation was carried out. Background relevant but not sure with this. Seems a more general area but u may enlighten me. Help us understand why relevant.
AA: Questions are done that's fine.

AA: this relates to whether a balanced investigation and if looked at matters that were relevant
J: as long as sticking to issues relevant
CA: if helpful the doc I was referring to was 105. I'll give a moment to catch up.

[Page 185 not 105]
CA: [reads 'I'm not sure whether u should be investigating']
J: We need to get back on track.
AA: let's move to next area. Let me tell u how I understand ur position atm. U had some sense at what happened at drop in and that was relevant to background

AA: U didn't take any enhanced relevance from it
CA: I took all relevance from petition and what happened there
AA: Ehat I put to u is that in effect u take a political stance notwithstanding that there are concerns emerging from drop in about transphobia, what happens from there

AA: ie the grievance that was presented on 11th May. The entire focus is on those ppl who responded to that grievance?
CA: I'd say a number of points of ussue there. First. The scope of grievance policy is outline at page 519 which states procedure applies in instances that

Effect employees personally. When more than one has same grievance thye have to sign to it. The provision of grant to LGB was subject to complaints process. 2 email sent to Stephanie Byesouth was not sent by them and without their consent and approval

CA: Solidarity say there wasn't a grievance it was an email sent by Stepahnie Byesouth.
AA: were u not concerned by the underlying statement that was made there was discriminatory language about anti trans?
CA: Need evidence and it didn't include evidence

CA: Thing which became most apparent within 9 mins of petition being online was misconduct and behaviour of people making comments and for those we had examples and evidence.

AA: This is chat downloaded and the genesis of the concern about transphobic discrimination and behaviour. U said u needed evidence and that was clearly available to u
CA: Not evidence
AA: it's material you could look at. Did u look at it?
CA: yes. I was on the call. I saw it

AA: I didn't know that. When I look at this in context of this case and what ur saying about AIW alleged misconduct re how she commented on the actions of individuals which breached Dignity at work bc of GC beliefs, I put it to u this document is littered with same type of

comments, which conflate GC transphobia racism and any other ism and ist. Let me know at this point if u saw any of that?
CA: my recollection of this was that the ire was directed to LGBA.
AA: So. OK. Bear with me.

AA: Let's look at it in detail.
J: before we do, appropriate to take break?
AA: yes
J: Come back at 2.40. [Reminds CA he cannot speak to anyone]. Thank you

[ENDS. BACK AT 2.40]

@threadreaderapp pls unroll