Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is part 2 of the morning session in the case of Maria Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd at employment tribunal. Part 1 of this morning's session is here

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1974031772972126326

The court is currently taking a short break.

[we resume]
NC: would like to let AL know that his sound over the remote stream is not good [mic is repositioned]

NC: returning to the outcome letter from MK grievance - please read last paragraph.
NC: You say there that, considering the available provision there is for men and women, that there is not need to stop staff using 'affirmed gender' toilets.

NC: Surely this is saying that the privacy and dignity of your female staff is not a proportionate and justified reason for preventing men using the women's loos.

NC: But your few T-indentifying staff would *not* have found themselves without suitable loos if you'd had a single-sex policy - you had single occupancy loos, accessible loos.
NC: I suggest that it's not OK to ask *all* your female staff who don't want to share with men to use accesslble ones

NC Am saying the impact on the few men is nothing like as great as the impact on all your female staff.
AL: It never came up as an issue.

NC: Letting men use women's toilets makes all ten toilets on each floor unsuitable for women
AL: It was never raised as an issue.

NC: It's surely not OK to set up unfair and unreasonable arrangements and then expect your female staff to complain about them? You shouldn't do it in the first place.
AL: We didn't have any complaints.

NC: You can only think it's proportionate to disadvantage all your female staff for the same of a handful of men, if you place a startlingly low value on your female staff?
AL: [still can't hear him that well!]

NC: So if female staff decide to put up with unsuitable arrangements, rather than rock the boat as MK has, that's fine by you?
AL: Don't agree that's the case here.

NC: What consultation did you undertake with female staff before adopting the practice?
AL: No consultation, because no change in policy took place.

NC: Came into place with nobody considering it, or writing it down, or consulting anyone at all, at any time? Just because nobody in management was prepared to say no to trans identifying men?
AL: Disagree. Everything just natrually evolved over time.

NC: Moving onto the grievance. [ref p246-247] looking particularly at these bullet point questions p247.
NC: Those Qs are wholly reasonable - easy to anwser?
AL: Yes

NC: p310 - outcome letter gives the answers to them. The first Q who was consulted - you reply that RR took legal advice. That's not actually an answer is it?
AL: Well we'd said there wasn't a policy, but that RR had consulted HR to find out practice, and took advice, but no not consultation

NC: More accurate answer wd have been "we didn't dare say no, so we didn't consult anyone"
AL: Don't agree.

NC: Next Q is when was policy introduced. True answer wd have been 'don't know when, because of institutional cowardice - didn't dare say no to T identifying men. Just quietly let the men do what they wanted"
AL: [missed]

NC: [ref] this is the grievance meeting. MK says there is a need to communicate the policy to staff, and it's noted that company may not wish to develop formal policy. That's just hoping the women won't make a fuss isn't it?
AL: Reiterate that there weren't any complaints

NC: Next Q is about how L is interpreting 'men' and 'women' per 1992 workplace regs. You answer, same as EA2010. Now that SC has clarified, is that still your position?
AL: Not clear yet

NC: You contend 1992 regs might differ from EA?
AL: I can't really say
NC: Fair enough

NC: Next Q is what EqImpactAss conducted. Answewr is the same - no decision made so no EIA
AL: Correct

NC: MK describes reason women might want single sex spaces. Your response is a grudging acknowledgmnet that's reasonable, and that you'll recategorise some loos as single occupancy?
AL: Not grudging no. Attempt to meet MK needs

NC: Does not address the issue that a woman might meet a man in the ladies. And means that even if the single-occupancy ones *are* suitable for women, those are now the *only* ones that are bar the accessible?
AL: [missed]

NC: [ref] MK points out there has been no equalities training mandated for staff since 2018, not refreshed since then
AL: that's correct
NC: Specifically, not refreshed post Forstater 2021?
AL: We accepted that we would have to do something in that space. It's under development. [missing rest of this]

NC: Do we gather that the training still has not been refreshed? Still ignores Forstater? If it was being revised, and put out to all staff, you'd know?
AL: YEs I would
NC: Not refreshed post FWS SC? You'd know if it had?
AL Yes

NC: ANd response to FWS has been to consult unions on how to get round it, not to train staff to know and follow it.

ST: Way that question was put - it was a proposition, and witness said "OK" - not clear what he was agreeing to.
J: Perhaps a point for re-examination? Or NC can re-ask?

NC: Put it to you that L response has been to ask unions how to get round it, rather than how to comply with it?
AL: Meetings have been very, very vocal, about not changing current practice yet. Unions keen to wait for guidance. Our aim was to get to a position where we could say what we were doing.

AL: We agreed to take advice, to see what other employers were doing, and consensus was to make no change until, well, and keep things under review.

NC: That's a long-ish answer but boils down to 'yes' - response has not been to say, SC is clear, let's get on with it, but to agree with the union to try to get round it?
AL: Not just the union - other discussions - but yes, decision to wait until things are clearer.

NC [ref p145] This is the grievance policy. Sure you're familiar with that document and that you looked it in relation to MK's grievance. Quite demanding timescale for the stages - five working day gaps between steps. Tight timetable but that's what it says.

NC: But in MK case every stage was delayed. And unacceptable reasons for delay given. [goes through some dates. AL agrees that normal timescsales were not followed]

[apologies - my internet connection glitched and have missed some Qs]

[AL is describing discussions had during MK grievance process about how to address]
NC: And this was 16 days after the meeting
AL: Yes

NC: This was not a complicated grievance, with evidence to evaluate. It was simply 'you are letting men use the women's toilets, that's not legal'
AL: It was complicated to take into account everytihng that needed to be.

NC: All you had to do was take proper advice and then decide either you are right or we are right
AL: I don't accept that, took time to look at all angles, to consider budgets, all that. Some points anwsered quickly but the overall issue more complex. Much to discuss.

NC: The outcome letter was 31 days after the meeting.
AL: Yes
NC: [p304] - this email asks for a clear idea of what the cause of 6 week delay was. I don't think you have explained that here yet?

AL: I think I just explained - it was a grievance with a number of points, we needed to get all the information together, the biggest factor was to get everyone on board with the facilities we should provide.

NC: The notice of appeal is p335 but the meeting wasn't until 19th September.
AL: I can't recall dates?
[NC & ST look up doc]
NC: first grievance began June, surely this should have been treated with more urgency?
AL: We tried to get the right people involved, we were diligent, to get it right

NC: That's the end of a topic, so a good moment for lunch?
J: Agree. We will re-start at 1.05pm

[LUNCH]

@threadreaderapp please unroll