We are on a short break. We will resume morning of day 2 of evidence shortly.
Morning part 2, day 2 of evidence from the hearing of Ms B Hutchison & others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust being held at Newcastle Employment Tribunal will resume shortly.
We have resumed. Bethany Hutchison is still giving evidence.
SC - Want to move to WS bundle. Para 27 of yr WS. Moved to 15/4. Meetign youhave with Claire Gregory - said sth to you about being reeducated. She understood Tracy Atkinson said to her in their meeting.
BH - Y.
SC - so they gave diff accounts of their meeting.
BH - Y.
SC - so they gave diff accounts of their meeting.
BEth said she was going to go to her legal team. In your statement. Letter to Morgan Smith in vol 3. Letter 30th April. Claire Greg didn't draft letter, drafted by you and your lawyers. No dealings with yr legal team.
BH - Y.
SC - you asked her to send. Did you go back to each signatory
BH - Y.
SC - you asked her to send. Did you go back to each signatory
and ask if they were ok.
BH - people not happy to be told about reeducating themselves, what CG had told them.
SC - 30/04. Now meeting in May. Attended by Tracy Atkinson. Secretly recorded by Miss Lockey. Told everyone it would be?
BH - No.
SC - did you ask why secret.
BH - people not happy to be told about reeducating themselves, what CG had told them.
SC - 30/04. Now meeting in May. Attended by Tracy Atkinson. Secretly recorded by Miss Lockey. Told everyone it would be?
BH - No.
SC - did you ask why secret.
Didn't trust her.
SC - transcript of meeting, 308. How many attended.
BH - a lot. Very crowded meeting room.
SC - Medical staff and Janet Moore
BH - and an observer.
SC - Lasted an hour. PUt pov to Miss Atkinson. Said what you wanted?
BH - yes. No one tried to stop me.
SC - transcript of meeting, 308. How many attended.
BH - a lot. Very crowded meeting room.
SC - Medical staff and Janet Moore
BH - and an observer.
SC - Lasted an hour. PUt pov to Miss Atkinson. Said what you wanted?
BH - yes. No one tried to stop me.
Tech error.
BH disingenuous in meeting , even if found place would have been turned down by TA and AM prior to meeitng.
SC what could TA have said
BH - this had been going on since '23, she describes as first stage conv
BH disingenuous in meeting , even if found place would have been turned down by TA and AM prior to meeitng.
SC what could TA have said
BH - this had been going on since '23, she describes as first stage conv
BH it had been going on for ages, worrying and troubling behaviorus neither had read the letter, hadn't read about behaviour. Came in blind and judged us as troublemankers, making noise. WHole way through like this
SC not a long time
SC not a long time
BH ye sit was hen theres a man in a CR alongside women who have been abused 2 years is inexcusable
SC not 2 years
BH yes it was, it was raised earlier
SC - TA said what she would do, why not trust
BH - bcos of previous meeting
SC - didn't anyone say you've already made up your mind
BH - no, senior HR people
SC not 2 years
BH yes it was, it was raised earlier
SC - TA said what she would do, why not trust
BH - bcos of previous meeting
SC - didn't anyone say you've already made up your mind
BH - no, senior HR people
BH - and had made themselves clear
SC - why go to meeting then?
BH - should have been done earlier, a chance to be heard
SC - I say TA couldn't have done more
BH - no
SC - between meeting and claim form went to media
BH - yes
SC - statment pg 15, media engagement and public
SC - why go to meeting then?
BH - should have been done earlier, a chance to be heard
SC - I say TA couldn't have done more
BH - no
SC - between meeting and claim form went to media
BH - yes
SC - statment pg 15, media engagement and public
Support you say you informed before issued proceedings
BH - yes
SC - important to cooperate with media to get fair coverage
BH - yes
SC - from that point you ceased to engage with employer?
BH - no, gave statements etc
SC - in vol2, no 1 - pg 401 - story in Mail on Sunday
BH - yes
SC - important to cooperate with media to get fair coverage
BH - yes
SC - from that point you ceased to engage with employer?
BH - no, gave statements etc
SC - in vol2, no 1 - pg 401 - story in Mail on Sunday
BH - yes
SC - aware Sun was reporting?
BH - cant' remember speaking to them
SC - any of others?
BH - couldn't say
SC - you know 26th May Sun identified the Trust
BH - yes
SC - by 26th May this Trust, this problem with an unID person
BH - yes
SC - aware Sun was reporting?
BH - cant' remember speaking to them
SC - any of others?
BH - couldn't say
SC - you know 26th May Sun identified the Trust
BH - yes
SC - by 26th May this Trust, this problem with an unID person
BH - yes
SC - do you know if other signatories knew about media?
BH -yes
SC - happy
BH - no one raised concerns
SC - you list those you've met who are supportive?
BH - yes
SC - spoken to lots of people, in public
BH - some
SC - online?
BH - social media yes
SC - media and press iv's
BH -yes
SC - happy
BH - no one raised concerns
SC - you list those you've met who are supportive?
BH - yes
SC - spoken to lots of people, in public
BH - some
SC - online?
BH - social media yes
SC - media and press iv's
BH - yes
SC - in these articles/appearances, you refer to T person not transitioning, stopping hormones etc
BH - yes
SC - agree theis is v personal
BH - it's v persoanl for a man to be in an F CR, many cases of women, inc in the NHS, being demonised
SC - you didn't know it to be
SC - in these articles/appearances, you refer to T person not transitioning, stopping hormones etc
BH - yes
SC - agree theis is v personal
BH - it's v persoanl for a man to be in an F CR, many cases of women, inc in the NHS, being demonised
SC - you didn't know it to be
true
BH - no reason to doubt
SC - Roses ID became knowledge, you want your privacy but your actions led to breech of roses
BH - I'd say no
SC - you breech R's privacy
BH - he breeches mine and has since 2019 apparently
SC - do you accept after 20th may meeting Trust looks for
BH - no reason to doubt
SC - Roses ID became knowledge, you want your privacy but your actions led to breech of roses
BH - I'd say no
SC - you breech R's privacy
BH - he breeches mine and has since 2019 apparently
SC - do you accept after 20th may meeting Trust looks for
solution.
BH - it's an email not an alternative
SC - they were trying weren't they?
BH - were they? I don't think so it was urgent and nothing had been done.
SC - the posters we've looked at, page 1011, again part of iv with Womans Hour on R4. Top of page you say
BH - it's an email not an alternative
SC - they were trying weren't they?
BH - were they? I don't think so it was urgent and nothing had been done.
SC - the posters we've looked at, page 1011, again part of iv with Womans Hour on R4. Top of page you say
SC - we walked in to a poster, which was put up and taken down, don't know who pu ti t up
BH - senior team make posters we don't, typically it's senior team who put up warning pictures and stuff like that.
SC - senior team took it down straight away SW took it down
BH - senior team make posters we don't, typically it's senior team who put up warning pictures and stuff like that.
SC - senior team took it down straight away SW took it down
BH - wasn't straight away, don't know who
SC - cant be harassment it was taken straight down
BH - it is I'm an employee and it was put up.
SC - will come back to that. In 4th box down you are asked if there is an policy you'd be happy with. You drew up a draft policy for wes streeting
SC - cant be harassment it was taken straight down
BH - it is I'm an employee and it was put up.
SC - will come back to that. In 4th box down you are asked if there is an policy you'd be happy with. You drew up a draft policy for wes streeting
SC - sent to Trust?
BH - no they could have requested it,
SC - didn't know about it.
BH - likely listened to Womans hour
SC - another issue. ALlegations of frequent unnecessary visits to CR, want to know which allegations you are making. 8th July 24 walked into admissions
BH - no they could have requested it,
SC - didn't know about it.
BH - likely listened to Womans hour
SC - another issue. ALlegations of frequent unnecessary visits to CR, want to know which allegations you are making. 8th July 24 walked into admissions
lounge - not you?
BH - no, if he was requested *missed*
SC - you say it was unlikely Rose was asked, and so it was harassment o fyou?
BH - not personally no
SC - 10th July, walked onto ward 14, to get trolleys. Not usual. RH displayed amusement, 2 people not needed
BH - no, if he was requested *missed*
SC - you say it was unlikely Rose was asked, and so it was harassment o fyou?
BH - not personally no
SC - 10th July, walked onto ward 14, to get trolleys. Not usual. RH displayed amusement, 2 people not needed
SC - if he had been asked would it be appropriate?
BH - yes but never seen him there before
SC - but if asked
BH - yes but he was laughing and smirking
SC - laughing not allowed
BH - he was jus tback frm his special leave, he was laughing and inintimidating us
BH - yes but never seen him there before
SC - but if asked
BH - yes but he was laughing and smirking
SC - laughing not allowed
BH - he was jus tback frm his special leave, he was laughing and inintimidating us
BH - he is not the victim here, I've been limited in my role, in my job collecting patients
SC - it's not intimidation to collect a trolley if asked
BH - if he was intimidated or stressed he wouldn't have been on the ward where so many of us were.
SC - so Trust should have limited
SC - it's not intimidation to collect a trolley if asked
BH - if he was intimidated or stressed he wouldn't have been on the ward where so many of us were.
SC - so Trust should have limited
limited where he could go
BH - no saying if he was intimidated he wouldn't have been laughing and smirking on the ward 2 days after returning, he is not the victim here.
SC - before I leave 2, did I hear Mrs danson say 2 people are needed to push a trolley
BH - no saying if he was intimidated he wouldn't have been laughing and smirking on the ward 2 days after returning, he is not the victim here.
SC - before I leave 2, did I hear Mrs danson say 2 people are needed to push a trolley
BH - if a person in it yes, not empties
SC - ?
BH - not sure
SC - account of walking onto ward and then off, you say second account is the harassment of you?
BH - yes
SC - want to deal with mail interception allegation, pg 22, you set out what you feel happened, opened wihtout
SC - ?
BH - not sure
SC - account of walking onto ward and then off, you say second account is the harassment of you?
BH - yes
SC - want to deal with mail interception allegation, pg 22, you set out what you feel happened, opened wihtout
SC - your knowledge or consent.
BH - yes
SC - 2114 - 2113, see back of envelope, message 2114. Says Hi BH reviewed from data security, as envelope doesn't say private etc and your ward isn't there, would expect normal process to be followed - right?
BH - had my name
SC - we can
BH - yes
SC - 2114 - 2113, see back of envelope, message 2114. Says Hi BH reviewed from data security, as envelope doesn't say private etc and your ward isn't there, would expect normal process to be followed - right?
BH - had my name
SC - we can
only see back of envelope
BH - we'd had lots of mail by then, they would ahve known where I was
SC - you were well known?
BH - could just type my name into system to see
J -don't know who opened?
BH no could have been a mistake but unlikely
J - only eg of open mail
BH - yes
BH - we'd had lots of mail by then, they would ahve known where I was
SC - you were well known?
BH - could just type my name into system to see
J -don't know who opened?
BH no could have been a mistake but unlikely
J - only eg of open mail
BH - yes
SC - threatening letters from trust section of statement, vol 3 pg 392, para 80. you describe letter from Andrew Thacker AT, threat of disciplinary over media coverage.
BH - yes
SC - aware of uk media involvement and legal action, it's not appropriate to make allegations about
BH - yes
SC - aware of uk media involvement and legal action, it's not appropriate to make allegations about
SC - colleagues.
BH - yes
SC - announces intention to investigate, ask you to refrain from further comment on colleagues till IX is done.
BH - yes reasonable
SC - reminded of duty as colleague, then will not tolerate behaviour inside or outside of work
BH - thretening, Trust had
BH - yes
SC - announces intention to investigate, ask you to refrain from further comment on colleagues till IX is done.
BH - yes reasonable
SC - reminded of duty as colleague, then will not tolerate behaviour inside or outside of work
BH - thretening, Trust had
BH - decided unhappy with us, if there was a disiplinary it wound' t go in our favour
SC - was there a discipliary?
BH - no and they wouldn't dare now. I had to take sick leave aftre this because of Trust then AT thought it OK to send me this
SC - sent to all claimants in press
SC - was there a discipliary?
BH - no and they wouldn't dare now. I had to take sick leave aftre this because of Trust then AT thought it OK to send me this
SC - sent to all claimants in press
BH - yes
SC - an appropriate letter in light of press
BH - he caused be a vast amount of stress over this letter others and emails
J -?
SC - was going to ask same qu
?
SC - another letter you consider threatening. pg 23. notified start of resolution process. You don't say threat
SC - an appropriate letter in light of press
BH - he caused be a vast amount of stress over this letter others and emails
J -?
SC - was going to ask same qu
?
SC - another letter you consider threatening. pg 23. notified start of resolution process. You don't say threat
SC - ening. Presumably you welcome they are formally addressing your concerns?
BH - page?
SC - 82 qu is did you welcome it?
BH - for me too little too late, should have been done earlier. It was half hearted, should have been done earlier
SC - but trying to do something
BH - page?
SC - 82 qu is did you welcome it?
BH - for me too little too late, should have been done earlier. It was half hearted, should have been done earlier
SC - but trying to do something
BH - trying to show they are trying to do something.
SC - invite to attend resolution meeting which may start disciplinary proceedings of you. Found?
BH - yes, sorry found
SC - 6th aug 24 - letter, do you accept RH was entitled to raise complaint
BH - yes
SC - just like you
BH - yes
SC - invite to attend resolution meeting which may start disciplinary proceedings of you. Found?
BH - yes, sorry found
SC - 6th aug 24 - letter, do you accept RH was entitled to raise complaint
BH - yes
SC - just like you
BH - yes
SC - and had to investigate
BH - yes but it was in retaliation, felt he'd been coaxed by Unison member to do this.
SC - even if true, employer has to ix
BH - yes
SC - then a standard letter
BH - more keen to act on RH concerns as followed procedures whereas for us
J - straying
BH - yes but it was in retaliation, felt he'd been coaxed by Unison member to do this.
SC - even if true, employer has to ix
BH - yes
SC - then a standard letter
BH - more keen to act on RH concerns as followed procedures whereas for us
J - straying
SC - standard letter, not a threat, just what should happen
BH - felt like a threat, TA in that meeting, we were noise in the system, that's how we were deemed. They were willing to support RH use of CR
SC - this was just dealing with RHs concern, resolution procedure form
BH - felt like a threat, TA in that meeting, we were noise in the system, that's how we were deemed. They were willing to support RH use of CR
SC - this was just dealing with RHs concern, resolution procedure form
J - not read this
SC - everyone read. Pausing.
SC - that's the procedure form, Trust is just following process. not supporting RH agree
BH - yes following a process, but the conclusion had already been drawn
J - on what
BH - they deemed us hostile
SC - everyone read. Pausing.
SC - that's the procedure form, Trust is just following process. not supporting RH agree
BH - yes following a process, but the conclusion had already been drawn
J - on what
BH - they deemed us hostile
SC - what should the Trust have done put it in bin?
BH - no, do the procedure
SC - has this been concluded? to your knowledge resolved?
BH - don't think there's been an IX
J - did wonder where this was, this complaint as you read it, point of ?
BH - yes
J - section 3
BH - no, do the procedure
SC - has this been concluded? to your knowledge resolved?
BH - don't think there's been an IX
J - did wonder where this was, this complaint as you read it, point of ?
BH - yes
J - section 3
*J v low volume*
J - interviews
BH - yeah interviews
SC - your case is this is bad faith allegation
BH - yes
SC - because RH had nothing to complain about
BH - I felt it was retaliation
J - is that the allegation, in the box, anything false there?
BH - I dont think we created
J - interviews
BH - yeah interviews
SC - your case is this is bad faith allegation
BH - yes
SC - because RH had nothing to complain about
BH - I felt it was retaliation
J - is that the allegation, in the box, anything false there?
BH - I dont think we created
an environment
J - but nothing false about what happened? it's about belief RH felt intimidated?
BH - yes.
SC - you say in WS para 83, if he felt that way he would have avoided our unit. You say there's been no hostility, but there has
BH -no
SC - persoal intimate details in pres
J - but nothing false about what happened? it's about belief RH felt intimidated?
BH - yes.
SC - you say in WS para 83, if he felt that way he would have avoided our unit. You say there's been no hostility, but there has
BH -no
SC - persoal intimate details in pres
is hostile.
BH - having a man in the changing room is hostile
J - answer qu
BH - no not hostile, believed it true
J - leave aside rights and wrongs, looking at it whether it's true do you accept any personal details in press is ?? Would you like it?
BH - there has been
J - I know
BH - having a man in the changing room is hostile
J - answer qu
BH - no not hostile, believed it true
J - leave aside rights and wrongs, looking at it whether it's true do you accept any personal details in press is ?? Would you like it?
BH - there has been
J - I know
J - how does it feel
BH - not pleasant
SC - last qu - pg1729, 1730. Part of an article in Mail online 12th april '25, 2/3 way down, Bethany youngest of nurses who led the revolt...
J - can't see
SC - after that a line, this case isn't about Rose, its the Trust, not RH persoanlly
BH - not pleasant
SC - last qu - pg1729, 1730. Part of an article in Mail online 12th april '25, 2/3 way down, Bethany youngest of nurses who led the revolt...
J - can't see
SC - after that a line, this case isn't about Rose, its the Trust, not RH persoanlly
SC - you've made it all abou t RH personally
BH - no
SC - all the iv's - tv press, radio it's not about RH?
BH - no in all of those I've made it clear it's about the Trust.
J - how long?
SC - another hour I think
J - swearing in Mr Hutchinson after that? And others?
We'll break.
BH - no
SC - all the iv's - tv press, radio it's not about RH?
BH - no in all of those I've made it clear it's about the Trust.
J - how long?
SC - another hour I think
J - swearing in Mr Hutchinson after that? And others?
We'll break.
Lunch break.
No time given, but usually 1 hour.
Likely return at 14:00
@threadreaderapp please unroll.
No time given, but usually 1 hour.
Likely return at 14:00
@threadreaderapp please unroll.
@threadreaderapp @threadreaderapp unroll please
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
