Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the second afternoon session of Day 3 of Kelly v Leonardo.

We will resume after the short break.

NC - afternoon. a few qu about L women generally. It's right L says it is F friendly to attract talent.
AL - at pains to be an inclusive employer and we don't want to miss out on good employees and yes absolutely want to be seen as good to women and more generally
NC - F leadersh

NC - leadership, mentorship etc on your site, ambitions to increase numbers etc
AL - yes stated aim to invest time and skills promoting STEM subjects
NC - paraphrasing, you said you regard L to open an dresponsive to feedback from staff.
AL - yes

NC - bundle page 517? - seen before? take a look.
that report, JCC survey from May 23 on staff attitudes to gn toilets, sent out believing not an issue, message from staff was F staff don't like sharing with men.
AL - not sure of site, participation low, cleanliness and maintenan

AL - ce higher priority than GN, small number
NC - saying can be disregarded
AL - no just prioritiies
NC - M staff neutral on it, F negative, cleanliness men neutral, F v negative. Reasons quite obvious, men don't always aim straight or lift seat.

AL - cleanliness an issue
NC - because of what I said?
AL - probably
NC - so urinals would help as would keeping M and F separate>
AL - keeping on right side of legal advice we were given
NC - not consistent with F dignity to use toilets with m colleagues urine on seat and floor

AL - I can understand that's a view taken
NC - it's not dignified to have to wipe m colleagues urine off before using the toilet
AL - can't talk to that
NC - data for L is all self ID gender
AL - yes
NC - you don't know how many staff are M or F

AL - collect data on gender
NC - I think you are agreeing you don't know how many are bio M or bio F
AL - can argue that
NC - it's a yes or no
AL - ?
NC - isn't not collecting sex data an indicator L doesn't care about sex
AL - we collect the data...
NC - impossible to ask sex

NC - and get a truthful answer
AL - would we be able to ask that question
NC - the nature of this is I ask the questions
AL - (can't hear)
NC - 194 bundle - b4 i ask you understand there is debate between 2 views, GC acknowledges sex is real and matters and GI theory says GI

NC - matters and sex doesn't for practical purposes
AL - yes
NC - looking at glossary of terms on L intranet, seen before?
AL - no
NC - please glance through it.
J - clarification - currently on intranet?
NC - taken from intranet, will ask witness
ST - C says it was removed

J - there is a date on it, may not have seen
NC - I can't see a date.
AL - not familiar with this
NC - date on 198, 10th Sept authorship or update. you haven't seen
AL - no
NC - at that date, this was on the L intranet. do you agree GI of the 2 sides of the debate, GI permeates

NC - drafted from that POV?
AL - can't answer
NC - I'll point out. Cisgender or cis defined uncritically as identifying with that asigned at brth
AL - heard but I'm not an authority
NC - GC people find this offensive a subcat of their sex
AL - don't know
NC - GC reject sex assign

AL - ok
NC - so this takes the GI theory view
AL - yes
NC - deadnaming is a GI view, not a GC view of world
AL - don't know
NC - 196 - gay an identity where an individual is attracted to someone oof the same gender. lots of contentious things in that sentence.

AL - don't know how this was constructed
NC - accept gay and lesbians might find this offensive, homophobic even.
AL - not aware of that
NC - gender, masc and femininity, different or same as that assigned at birth, gender queer only meaningful to GI beliefs, accept?
AL - yes

NC - also GI, sex assigned at birth you see these contentious in the same way
AL - yes
NC - won't continue, but almost all GI view - homo/heterosexual, masc, Mx, pansexual, phobia, queer, sex on 198, all the T's. That doc is permeated with GI theory.
AL - ?
NC - sheer number

NC - strongly GI focussed
AL - yes
NC - in 2020 strongly aligned on GI
AL - it was 2020, don't know rationale for it being there
NC - change in rationale since 2020?
AL - trying to be increasingly inclusive, dignity of all employees and express in equality policies

NC - pg 520 - one final qu was taken down because MK objected
AL - yes, aware there were comments that were objected to
NC - were you aware when I was asking you about it
AL - was aware of it but hadn't seen it myself
NC - 520 start of your current diversity training

AL - yes I believe it is the digital training
NC - 556 - similar prob to the glossary, sex defined as a persons gender ID
AL - page?
NC - 556, definition comfortable with that
AL - a commercial product we;ve been given, if it needs to be reviewed then
NC - in chief, you were

NC - asked when men were allowed to use F toilets, you said it's been the practice as long as you recall
AL - never been asked about it, never aware of a policy, not aware of any correspondence about it. understanding through investigations it's just accepted

NC - as long as you remember?
AL - sound issues
NC - as long as you remember goes back, when did you join L?
AL - 1977, not always in this role
NC - when did you move from eng to personnel?
AL - probably 1990
NC - are you telling Trib if in 1990 a man came in a dress and make up

NC - and walked into the toilet
J - hypothetical qu
NC - yes will be some. In 1990, man with a ponytail walked into F loo everyone would have been OK with that
AL - can't answer that
NC - when did you realise it was an issue at L
AL - is it an issue?
NC - when were you aware

NC - some women had an issue with men in F facilities at L
AL - suppose first aware at the ??
NC - JN's response 22nd june to MK saying L toilets based on gender and align with workplace regs. She is saying it aligns
AL - yes
NC - so saying her many years... RR email 15th april

NC - sorry, looking for top of 225. 3rd line approach based on the law has been in place many years. RR's many years, JN's many years goes back to the regs in 1992 is that fair?
AL - JN said RR's point that it's been years, don't know how many.
NC - put the 2 emails together

NC - it would seem practice goes back to 92 at least, fits with what you said. Your evidence is that this practice has been in place since 92.
AL - it's never been raised, so never tested, relying on legislation, when practice started unaware
NC - either is 92 or at some point

NC - when M and F stopped meaning sex and became identity, an indefinable point when that came about
AL - ?
NC - the practice of allowing self ID to use choice of toilet is something that L is doing
AL - yes
NC -sorry if sounds stupid, it's my destiny at this point.

NC - it is something L did, it is L's conduct
AL - yes if that's the language
NC - pg 263 - email chain IP's inquriy of 8th july of MK to further explain her grievance and her reply. Have you read it before?
AL - probably some time ago
NC - remind yourself of it.

*reading*
NC - do you doubt sincerity?
AL - no I believe it's sincere
NC - says I can't believe I have to explain the obvious consequences of being female, eratic dramatic consequences of perimenopause in facilities with M. other F colleagues agree, now confirmed it is policy

NC - do you agree this policy is unpopoular
AL - it is with MK and clear we try to address her issues of privacy and dignity. Had discussion around additional facilities for additional privacy. ??? sorry sound bad
NC - bottom of 261 - read last 5 lines, first 3 next - MK makes

NC - it clear it's real not hypothetical, 3 men using female toilets at same time, difficulty to raise in case accuse of bigotry...
AL - trans females using facilities at the same time, *sound* issues raised
NC - are you suggesting the TiMs were given permission

NC - and MK just hadn't encountered them?
AL - we had't come across any incidents to change the practice
NC - it was inevitable women would find them there
AL - I'm sure there were incidents
NC - inevitable because of practice
NC - whole case is abotu L letting men use F toilet

AL - yes
NC - do you agree teh law relates to sex?
AL - repeat
NC - the rule is the people allowed to use F toilets are people who are F and men who ID, and vice versa those are L's rules, fair
AL - OK
NC - is it fair, how the rule is framed must mean
ST - clear to me asking legal

questions. not fair to ask witness, it's for our submissions
J - talking about conduct, it's basic questions of conduct, i understand your point but
NC - taken as far as I need, but I wouldn't submit that witness agreed
J - aware of time
ST - would like to speak to J re timetabl

J - you are done for the day, but you are back tomorrow, you can't discuss the case. Free to go.
AL - thanks v much

ST - at outset parties agreed timetable, generally good progress but this witness into tomorrow, how long NC has to go, but it's Friday and last day, Don't think

ST - we can both close tomorrow. Suggest written closings and a further questioning session. Think we are looking for another day.
J - looking for a day, C's point of view?
NC - challenge to finish before lunch tomorrow, do need another day.
J - both agree another 1 or 1/2 day

J - 1/2 should be sufficient. Don't want a significant gap before then. Could you come with date options, CVP is often easiest. Can't see why not CVP, any concern?
ST - can clerk send unavailable dates?
J - speak to listings to be sure. If you are minded to exchange closings,

J - and respond, we can do 1/2 day.
NC - might need a day.
ST - rather list a day
J - OK liaise and find date, happy to do CVP if it's earliest?
Yes
J - Leave it with you both. Come back within 7 days if not tomorrow.
Rise.

@threadreaderapp unroll please