Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly be live tweeting from day 6 of evidence from the hearing of Ms B Hutchison & others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust being held at Newcastle Employment Tribunal.
A group of nurses from Darlington Memorial Hospital, are bringing this ET against their employers alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination

It concerns the Trust’s policy of allowing a male colleague, identifying as a woman named Rose Henderson, to use the female changing room.

The nurses argue that sharing the changing facilities with Henderson has caused them distress. One nurse, a survivor of sexual abuse, reported experiencing panic attacks.
After raising concerns with hospital management, they were informed they needed to be “re-educated” to be more 'inclusive' and offered an office space to change in instead of the female changing room

Our full coverage can be found at
https://
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/eight-nurses
-v-county-durham-and
We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a verbatim record of proceedings.

Earlier sessions of today and all previous days can be found on our Substack
https://
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/eight-nurses
-v-county-durham-and

Abbreviations:
C/Ns - Claimants - the Darlington nurses
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for Claimants
MP - Michael Phillips, solicitor for claimants
PS - Pavel Stroilov, C’s solicitor, preliminary hearing
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
J/REJ - Regional Employment Judge Robertson
EJ - Employment Judge
ET - Employment Tribunal
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
DMH/H/Hospital - Darlington Memorial Hospital

The Claimant Nurses:
KD - Karen Danson
BH - Bethany Hutchison
CH - Carly Hoy
JP - Jane Peveller
MG - Mary Annice Grundy
TH - Tracey Hooper
ST - Sharen Trevarrow
LL - Lisa Lockey

Other names:
SS - Siobhan Sinclair, Housekeeper & Well-being officer, at DMH, now retired
SW - Sue Williams, HR at Trust
TA - Tracy Atkinson, HR at Trust
AT - Andrew Thacker, Director of Workforce and Organisational Development

More Abbreviations:
TG - Transgender
TW - Transwoman
CR/CF - Changing room or changing facilities
WS - Witness Statement
WA - Whatsapp
CLC - Christian Legal Centre
SEAL - Surgical Elective Admission Lounge
DSU - Day Surgery Unit

People starting to arrive into tribunal now

SC - Housekeeping point. Making the statement available eg to BBC?
J - make that available during break

J - is that by consent of parties?
SC - yes

NF - you still have the page open Mr Thacker - volume 1 , 379. This is the email 23rd May from Noel Scanlon.

NF he decided to announce his decision to retire in June. After publicity in tabloids

AT - yes.
J - can I just check . You were asking about this yesterday. 378 was a response to 379. If we look at the timing..I’m a bit confused
NF - apologies the problem is in my head

NF - the same afternoon 23 May 2024 the trust contacted by a newspaper which provided a copy of the article the paper was proposing to print
AT - yes

NF - page 401 the copy of the proof
AT - there was something sent in the body of an email yes

NF - the article as it was published on 26 May was not in the bundle but here’s a copy.
What this article does is it focuses on the imminent legal claim and what it will be about

NF - it doesn’t name Rose or others

NF - what you’re been sent doesn’t name them. After that was published, another newspaper published

NF - that’s the article 26 May that names the Trust. Go to your statement para 32 . You refer to this ‘the Mail on Sunday didn’t identify the Trust’

AT - the Mail on Sunday published them.
NF - what is that based on.
AT - they were trying to keep a handle on it so from that weekend media went crazy
NT - none of that answers my question

AT - I’ve no idea what happened .
NT - you’re making a serious allegation
AT - not an allegation
J - what issue does this relate to?

NF - sorry judge I’ll move on. The first time Rose’s name mentioned is November 2024 ?

AT - where is Rose’s name sorry.
NF - that was the first time some of the claimants (inaudible)
J - I’m taking it this is a press cutting. Without checking I thought the legal claim refereD to RH?

NF - para 54-56. P 16. Remind yourself. That wasn’t challenged on her evidence and you’re not in a position to say?
AT - no

NF - turn to another letter. That was sent to several claimants named in the media. JB, TH, BH, LL.

NF - it does matter because points made which allegation
AT - 4 claimants , in my statement.
NF - it went to different, overlapping addressees. (inaudible) and MG seem to have been overlooked?

NF - go to bundle 145. That’s the same letter, sent to Miss Bradbury. Even though she wasn’t in the article. You sent this letter to someone to whom it doesn’t apply at all. Does that bother you?

AT - yes. Yet Miss Grundy didn’t get a letter at all.
NF - (reading from letter) a right to raise concerns but not to raise allegations against other colleagues in the media

AT - the investigation hasn’t yet occurred so I didn’t know what was accurate .
I acknowledge their freedom of speech and concerns about issues in the trust.

AT - but I didn’t think it was appropriate to raise in the media. I didn’t read everything, the amount of interest was vast.

NF - you’ve drawn a distinction.
AT - in our policy it may result in disciplinary action. Making them aware we would need to investigate

NF - to be clear , when you wrote the letter you didn’t give any thought to the impact on them?
AT - I always consider the impact on any individual before sending a letter

AT - I was alerting colleagues that some of the behaviour was potentially a breach of the policy.
J -we’ve got the point - a difference between trust and individuals in the press

AT - it was playing out in media not within the Trust
NF - the claimants believe they’re right about a biological male in F CR.

AT - they raised the claim before resolving within the trust framework
NF - Letter this is Morgan Smith writing 29th May about resolution procedure, 2nd day after media.

AT - in my statement I make it clear - until July 2024 MS previous HR director. It was only when he went off ill that my involvement more.

NS - This process could have begun many months earlier
AT - March /April was first time I got across. Before that informally colleagues were trying to resolve.

J - in fairness to the witness he’s saying there’s a meeting, then the media, then couldn’t be dealt with informally.
NF - the informal stage had been met in 2023

AT - Morgan Smith invoked stage 2 of procedure because no long an opportunity to resolve informally. Following a meeting TA and others stage 2 was invoked.

J - is it part of the C’s case that invoking stage 2 is part of the detriment?
The delay and reasons for delay. I wonder where it fits in.

SC - we’re not saying that was an act of victimisation itself.
NF - this is 17 July 2024. Bundle 3 p 77. 7 weeks after initiating resolution procedure. Process is underway but hasn’t gone anywhere for several weeks.

AT - I met with Miss Newton on return from leave.
NF You attach the two letters from complainants. I’d like you to investigate .

NF - it’s quite a vague inquiry.
AT - it wasn’t for me - it was for the investigators.
NF - did you consult or meet with the grievance holders?
AT - no

NF - another letter then went out. P 263. Says from you’ve commissioned an external investigating officer. This is the notification the complainants get of their own procedure.

NF - they’re left out of that. External investigating officer you don’t even name. Goes to 25 signatories.

Apols typo 26.

AT - between Morgan and I , there was a letter intended to sent to C Gregory , but it didn’t get sent. There was an attempt to get the template form to provide us with more information and my understanding was the claimants had declined to complete the form.

AT - this is our own T internal process.
NF - the nurses all 26 got that letter advising resolution process underway

NF - but this is a grievance process.
AT - essentially the same
J - I’m a bit lost why this point

NF - 619 bundle 2. Letter from Sue Williams 6th August. Refers to an investigating officer about Rose’s complaint.
We’ve heard the reference to disciplinary procedure was intimidating.

AT - a standard ACAS letter.
NF - those who got this letter would understand the two (Rose’s letter also) would be linked.
J - is it predictable though

J - Rose complaint and this obviously linked.
NF - there’s a distinction between the complaint and airing in the media.
J - I don’t think any disagreement

NF - March 25. Matters encountering Rose on the ward, in DSU. Adding that would cause further delay. Your decision to add in?
AT - I wanted other matters added in formally asked to address.

NF - we’re now 11 months on , it was supposed to take one month.
AT - a lot of work and it became a larger group of people as Ms Newton and Ms Williams. Every time there was a meeting, others up to maybe 45, needed to be involved.

NF - Report completed end April 25. Took so long these tribunal proceedings overtook it. Chief concern, Rose biologically male being allowed to use the female CR.

NF - the concern is upheld.
SC - is that an issue
NF - so after a year, the concern concluded that was factually correct, but was part of the trust’s policy. And the policy was out of scope of the investigation.

NF - so we conclude the central complaint was not addressed. Utterly failed to deal with the central complaint raised.

NF - some complainants had withdrawn. The complaint also raised by RH was not addressed. Net effect after 12 months was a reduction in the number of complainants.

J - we’ll have a break for 10 minutes

@threadreaderapp unroll