Thread by @tribunaltweets

We hope to report the morning session, day 5 of the rehearing of ‘A’ v Nottingham County Council, starting at 10am. Day 1 was a reading day. Note: The Claimant was referred to as ‘Hannah’ in the previous 2024 hearing.

This case was part-heard in March of last year before collapsing on day 6 when a panel member's social media content was alleged to indicate anti-religious bias. Full details of events in and press from 2024 are found here: …

📷
'A' v Nottinghamshire County Council Primary school teacher sacked for refusing to 'socially transition' pupil claims unfair dismissal tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/hannah-v-a-p…

Ex-primary school teacher, referred to as ‘A’ (for legal reasons), is bringing an employment tribunal against her former employer, a primary school, and Nottinghamshire County Council, claiming unfair dismissal.

In her sixth year at the school, 'A' alleges that before the start of term she was ordered by the headteacher to 'socially transition' an 8-year-old girl.

‘A’ alleges she was unsettled by the situation, concerned for the welfare of both the girl and other pupils and raised the matter as a safeguarding issue. ‘A ’ claims she was victimised for whistleblowing and unfairly dismissed in 2022
We expect the hearing today to begin at 9.45

Abbrevsiations:

J – Judge, Dr Peter McTigue
P - Panel member

A or C – Claimant, (was ‘Hannah’ in previous hearing)
PS - Pavel Stroilov representing C

NCC or R – Respondent, Nottingham County Council (employer)

GR - Geoff Russell, Counsel for R
EB - Ed Beever, Counsel for R
The sound and video quality has not been good & on occasion we have not been able to work out which of the two is speaking and used
RC=respondent counsel

X or Child X - Child involved
H or HT - Headteacher
DH or DHT - Deputy headteacher
LADO - Local Authority Designated Officer
SL - Safeguarding Lead
DSL - Designated Safeguarding Lead
CoC - Code of Conduct
EA - Equality Act 2010

T or TG - Transgender
GR - Gender Reassignment
PC - Protected Characteristic

KCSIE = Keeping Children Safe In Education (statutory framework)
WS - Witness Statement

J Good am. We're in a position to start. We have 2 R's witnesses to get through today. Both Rs know we need breaks so bear that in mind. Remember the restricted reporting. New witness called by EB

MC is affirmed.
J Do u want me to go over the advice I gave? Take yr time. Explains the order of exam.
EB Good morning. Look at your WS. You are HR of NCC so not covered by anonymity here [her name is Miss Christian]
MC I would like to change para 4

MC And add serious misconduct re dismissal
EB Is yr WS true?
PS Can we look at serious misconduct - is it the same as gross misconduct?
MC Is the same
PS So gross leads to dismisaal?
MC Y
PS U took the panel's findings at face value?
MC Yes

MC They were from the panel's outcome - the dismissal
PS U took the panel's finding's at face value, without yr own IX?
MC Yes. Checked the 2 conditions were met.
PS So same reasons as the panel
MC Yes
PS 30 Jan 23 - 4.5 months after dismissal. So why appeal so late?

MC I cant remember. Lots of info to collate to give to both parties.
PS Go to vol 1 bundle...letter of 3 Sept 21 from HT to C [reads re further info and consulting w SW and HR] U were involved in writing this letter?
MC I cant remember, Can I read it?
PS Yes

PS Do you recall it?
Yes
PS Did u help prepare it?
No, was just run past me before going oit
PS Not part of yr role to think of affirming a child?
No
PS Just to do w being an employer
Yes
PS Was for staff to make that decision and to enforce staff decision

MC Yes
PS Can u say anything about discussions between parties?
MC I was involved in convos w HT, ? and legal rep
PS And SW?
MC No
PS Who had convos w SW
MC I donr know
PS Who was involved in the letter
MC I understand the HT drafted

PS Changes in the letter are hard to spot. Appears black and white, but this version shows [reads re direct discrim and C is in red] Suggests letter drafted a diff way and red C is a correction
J I'm not sure what this doc is and why we haven't discussed it earlier

EB It represents the doc in the elec bundle. I dont think its approp factual Q for this witness
J Getting correct page on my screen
PS Do u recall who made this change
MC Cld have been me, but I cant recall
J Y're saying addit of C was change to orig draft?
PS Yes

PS U changed would to could?
MC I cant remember
J Do u want to intervene EB?
EB No
PS Sentence [reads re taken advice on morals and principles and will manage sitn b4 a discipl route / looking at yr actions / instructions to C / invite to Sept meeting / re expectations and

PS maintaining confidentiality / what might result in disc action / bring a union rep] Conveys that on verge of disc actions?
MC No
PS Bring a colleague or union rep tho?
MC Always allow a support person in all mtgs
PS Manage b4 consider a disc route

PS Letter returns to threat of suspension and disc procedures
MC Is a statement of fact rather than threat
PS U also say [reads re expectations, trust and confidence] Has specific meanings in HR?
MC No, just means we dont want u to do anything that breaches trust

PS She cld think her job was at risk
MC No, just wanted..
PS Not a threat then?
MC No, just re expectations of her
PS So her finding it threatening wld be a surprise
MC I cant say how she felt

PS The suspension letter, dated 20 Sep 21, did u help prepare it?
MC I wld have reviewed but not prepare
PS Did u have a role in suspension?
MC I will have discussed it w the HT
PS [new doc] This is part of transcript of last yr's trial u observed
MC Yes, I did

PS I took her to these pages, [reads you can see the decision / it was mainly an HR decision] She's suggesting was mainly HR ie you.
MC We discussed and the decision is by the HT, whether susp is approp or not
PS Go to bundle 1. The letter from Chair Govs...

PS says reason isn't following mgmt instruction to use pronouns and names as told
MC Yes, is my recollection
PS There will be an Ix. Now looking at what the HT said, on p2915, is a discussion re suspension and I ask you re [reads re stand off and being out of work and it had

PS to be a formal susp / was about pronouns and C saying she cldnt] Purpose of Sx wasnt the Ix but to allow further discussions to reach an agreement
MC I recall Sx was due to refussal to use the chosen pronouns of the child. Looking at a potential Ix
PS Isnt what HT said

PS Was to put pressure on C to do what she was told despite conscience issues. The Sx was tactics to make her comply?
MC No
PS Before correspondence came from the HT. This signed by Chair of Govs. Why? To avoid dange to r'ship?
MC I cant remember but think is typical

[above tweet should say damage]
PS Could it be that she didnt want to be assoc w the letter?
MC Think using Chair of G is typical process
PS On p2207, Nov 22 and appeal hearing and email from u to the C, and asking she releases all copies of this doc and to delete e'thing

PS You then have email to say she's deleted all docs
MC Yes
PS You ask she confirms email also deleted
MC Yes
PS And she confirms?
MC Yes
PS This process takes u close to appeal hearing on the 9th, just 2 days?
MC Yes
PS Confirm correct doc went out?
MC I cant remember

PS Incorrect docs sent to her but then sorted?
MC Yes
PS Thanks v much
P [unable to hear Q]
MC They revise their docs every year. Think they adopt standard docs. Is very rare they dont
J Can u remember what these appendices are?
MC I cant say

J when a teacher dismissed, did u ever conduct any checking Ix on other teachers?
MC It's a stat duty after gross misconduct, we have to refer to the TRA
J Wld u ever do yr own Ix?
MC It's a stat regulation

EB U were asked about poss delay to TRA referral

EB Delay cld have been re the amount of info u needed to send. Letter from solictitors involved in TRA Ix, and attached is p2214, [reads heading] Looking at this list, how does this reflect yr recollection of what was needed?
MC There was a lot and think it covers it all

EB Re the Appendices attached to the Ix report.
MC I cant remember
EB Looking at the index, doc 81 says sch Ix report and all the Appx are listed
Yes
EB We can see these 4. Appex 2 from JR, ICO email, and [missed] Does it relate to these Appx?
MC Yes,

EB U were asked about the signature and potential disassociation. who fires and hires staff?
MC Hiring is delegated to HT. A dismissal goes to the gov body
EB Thank you judge
J Shall we go to next witness or have a break?
Next witness called...

[It's incredibly noisy on the remote access]
EB I'll call the HT then
[HT affirms]
J Do u need me to go over the process? Take yr time to read the docs and take a break if u need to
EB Look at yr WS

EB And yr 39 paras signed in Feb 24
HT Yes
EB You were the HT, but have retired?
HT Yes
EB Subject to that amendment is this accurate
HT Yes
PS Good am HT. I will call u HT [someones phone ringing] In para 10, u explain [reads re v diff issue for schs as no govt guidance

PS Only Feb 24 was any guidance given]
HT Yes
PS Are v polarised views re transition in 1ty age children
HT This says schs dealing w indiv cases, just that
PS I'm saying is polarised
HT No, am saying is about guidance

PS You agreed w me last year saying is v polarised [reading from prev transcript: part of problems is diff opinions] You agreed w me last yr, and you agreed was diff in primary age
HT I came to the concl it was a diff sitn we were in
PS Y're aware fiercely different views
Yes

PS Prim age chn are too young is one view?
HT That is one view
PS Is only boys and girls at htat age
HT That is one view
PS And some believe the correct approach is to align w sex
HT I dont know
J there no dispute about the Cs beliefs

J There's no dispute about the C's beliefs so unclear where this is going
EB I agree. Last time the J expressed the same concerns that trib going where it didnt need to
PS I'm trying to keep it relevant this time. Can we agree some definitions to save time going forward

J I'll allow a few more Qs. The HT has given evid that there are certain views
PS Hopefully y'll see where I'm going. The opposite view is no-one is too young to be T. And a prim age child shld be affirmed in their new gender
HT It's a view. I knew different views but can't

HT comment beyond that
PS I will call this the affirmative view or approach. The view that [sound issues] I'll call conservative.
EB I'm concerned re this becoming correct or incorrect view by using shorthand. It carries implic that sch was adopting a partic approach.

EB rather than this indiv child, sch and teacher.
PS [missed]
EB U said no child is too young, but that's not true for this case and cld be misleading
J I take yr observation on baord EB. I think y're trying to make Q simpler and more effective

J ANy opinion may not have diametrically opposed views as may be a spectrum.
PS I'm just trying to find labels so dont have to unpack every time. Meant to save time and avoid confusion
EB The claim is sch has an affirm approach but we say the child was dealt w individually

J I'll allow this to continue, but submissions may be needed. There's a whole range of opinions in philo beliefs.
PS U were aware the Cs beliefs were conservative
HT I was aware of her concerns and beliefs, yes
PS In your WS, para 15 u say u don't agree w the Cs viewpoint

PS about this child. And explain that u disagree re use of pronouns.
HT My role is to support indiv child and family in that circumsatnce
PS U say u disagree w C re
HT In this specific circumstance. I dont have a view on the whole issue. I dont have to say what my opinions

PS Do u have personal beliefs re this?
HT Yes, I go w what's right for the family. I don't know
PS [reads re accepting the family view and what they've been thru / not a SG issue] U say the family knows best
HT Yes, they needed to be supported in our community and known

HT what had been through
PS What about SG?
HT We felt we [missed]
PS U didnt think were harming the child?
HT I was confident in SG of the sch
PS Did u form an opinion that affirm was a risk
HT I took it in the round when making the decision
PS U didnt form yr own view

PS And did what HR and LA told you to do
HT I met the child and family and was satisfied w the approach we took
PS [new docs] Yr letter to all parents of sch explaining Child Y was going to explore their GI. U sent this?
Yes

PS You explained, signposted to others, and would give pupils lessons in age appropriate way in r'ship education. You had guidance from DfE?
HT Was in line with PHSE and DfE guidelines
PS In p2378, DfE Guidance on RSE, has section on using ext agencies where urged to take

partic care re impartiality and [reads re balance / age approp / exercise extreme caution w ext agencies and not use agencies that take extreme positions or use their contents / when preparing to work w these u shld do an online search as parents may also do this]

PS [reads re ensuring content is approp / can be sensitive to navigate sex and gender issues..]
J This is alot of info here and you and the tribunal wld benefit from time to read these sections
PS Yes, using ext agancies and ensuring the contents are approp - if you read these

PS So in RSE, the govt cautions u about working w orgs that promote an ideological views rather than impartial
HT Be mindful of the curric and what yr teaching
PS Can be complex and diff to teach this / dont rely on stereotypes / must always be evidence based

PS [read re non-complaince w stereotypes doesnt mean a GI issue Seems guidance flags to sch that issue sensitive, are campaigners w partisan views and schs shld be careful
HT Always careful re what we teach, is complex, and have to trat pupils w sympathy and support

PS The govt gave guidance and said care re externals.
HT The govt talked re age approp
PS U reference RSE, so wld have had guidance in mind
HT We were also careful, esp in RSE. It's about r'ships between ppl in RSE

PS On p76, [reads re HT email on 22 July to all staff. circulating letter we just looked at re the child / attached info to trans awareness training all must do over the Summer and training by Sarah Lee - worked for NCC. U cldnt remember the resources sent last yr

HT We cldnt find the email sent then
PS We assumed last yr they were SLs documents
HT Yes
PS Did you check these training docs?
HT I read them. I took steer from NCC re their training being appropriate
PS This would be an appropriate time to break J
J We'll break to 11.30

@threadreaderapp unroll