Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to PART 2 of the afternoon session of DAY 6 of Bethany Hutchison & others vs County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust - AKA "the Darlington Nurses" case.

We expect Tracy Atkinson to continue her evidence.

For previous reporting please visit our substack.

Please note: This is not a verbatim transcript. We report in good faith & make every effort to do so accurately.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/eight-nurses…

Abbrevs

J/EJ - Employment Judge Sweeney
P- One of 2 Panel members

C/Ns - Claimants - Darlington nurses
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for Claimants

R/T/Trust - Respondent, C. Durham & Darlington NHS Trust
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for R
TA - Tracy Atkinson, HR at T

[Tribunal resumes 15:44 - late to admission]

NF - You had the gist that women didnt what ro share with TG?
TA - Yes. I guess that the TITWPP was be part of conditions. I was trying to understand the concerns.
NF - You say several times about not knowing the concerns. Here it gives a strong recommendation.

Was miss Bailey doing what you thought she would do?
TA - I had confidence where this concerns was going to be managed.
NF - What would the dealings be under RP?
TA - My teams would support at stages. Mine was a more broader role in HR

NF - You heard Cs say that further complaints were made over following months. It's right that raising concerns would be stage one of RP?
TA - It may be round the table discussions, there'd be a paperwork trail.

NF - U learned concerns had not gone away by Feb 2024. U saw an email from Claire Gregory. We will look at that. Starting at para 153 of your statement.
This is a 2nd time this complaint had come to ur attention
TA - 2nd time it had arisen yes

NF - If we go to 277. See an email from Clare Gregory [CG] from Smedley. And Sandra Watson [SWT]. CG is a matron at DSU.
[TA reads]

NF - Next one is 281. A msg from CG, a msg essentially to herself and attached to an email to miss smedley.
[TA reads]
NF - So this is CG sending a link and emails to Smedley and then 287. A msg from CG to Smedley, miss nailer and miss Harrison, who are they?

TA - I think Nailer is a sister at DSU
NF - U say in your WS [reads " I came to know concerns"]
[TA reads]
NF - No sorry we dont see that. [Reads] So we see here, sorry for mistake, is JBs further advice and u are in the distribution?
TA - yes

[J clarifies]

NF - I believe u were sent the email at the start of this sequence. Go back to that.
TA - I don't recall that email
NF - Let me go to why I think it was sent to u. Go to page 125.

NF - There we have Smedley writing to JB, you and Laidler and we see Smedley says [reads "concerns today - seems day surgery feel uncomfortable and should have been made aware. I think theres some exaggeration Rose is parading about in her underwear"]

NF - This phrase is used again. Go back to 277. Thats the only email i can find in this sequence. It is to her from CG and includes phrases "on one occasion this member was walking around in boxers shorts while F were getting ready"]

It looks to me Smedley is attaching that email when she writes to you and others?
TA - possibly
[J clarifies]
NF - When she says attached, the email says "parading round in underwear".
TA - I dont know what the attachment is. I dont recall seeing that

NF - We cant ask Miss smedley but u cant remember whether u read that at the time
TA - I defo did not read it at the time
NF - So even if u had been sent it u wouldn't have read it?
TA - I was aware JB was involved in the matter but I wasnt dealing with that matter at the time.

TA - Our role is to give advice and support not to manage
NF - She says "theres some exaggeration"
J - Its addressed to Jillian
NF - And u are included in distribution?
TA - yes
NF - And you had no reaction. Did u respond in any way?

TA - I may have asked what did she mean by that but I didn't.
NF - What u describe in your statement is that this was a comprehensive reply. Was the content of that reply for u to consider?
TA - No im not an expert in equality law. Wasn't for me to review

NF - [reads "c1s gender colleagues and trans colleagues"] This is a challenge being made to TITWPP?
TA - This is a xhallenge to situ we were facing at that time. JB says [reads too fast] That was her position. I had no reason to question

TA - Mu understanding was it was very moving in terms of guidance at the time
NF - See how Miss Bailey ends. She says " ideally an ideal solution is gender neutral facilities. Interim open dialogue, assess privacy, installing partitions"

NF - [reads " seeking legal advice would be prident"] This all went beyond TITWPP which says find alternative facilities. You're nodding. Whose responsibility was to consider those recommendations?
TA - Normally policy holder and conjunction with staff side and stakeholders

J - Was there a particular person responsible?
TA - It would be the policy holder.
NF - Mr Moore?
TA - Yes if thats Mr Moore.
NF - Policy went back to 2021. [Searches for policy]

NF - So thats the first page of policy current at the time. Chairman at the time was Morgan Smith. Are either the policy holder?
TA - Mr Moore is the equivalent of me so yes
NF - when u saw recommendations u thought thats for Mr Moore?

TA - Yes. JB was looking at policy and Mr Moore copied in
NF - You shared an office with Mr Moore at the time. Did u discuss?
TA - We will have done yes but not necessarily about policy

NF - Re legal advice "seeking legal advice was prudent" looks to me JB is saying its not clear and to seek legal advice. Whose responsibility was that?
TA - Mr Moore's. It was complex at that time. Better to ask JB or Mr Moore that question.

NF - In Feb 2024 we've seen correspondence around this issue. From perspective of Cs there was no communication. Why?
TA - I had no formal concerns at that time. I just knew it was complex at that time

NF - It wasnt in your remit to communicate with who raised the issue?
TA - I presumed management team had convinced with their staff

[Moved to another doc. Reads too quickly]

NF - [reads "we addressed concerns with Rose not those raising concerns"]. Everything about the tone of that email says it was inapprotobraise concerns?
TA - No. I thought it was escalating. It wasn't resolved at local level. I still hadn't had formal concerns but it

was obvious it was escalating.

NF - Did you seek legal advice at this point?
TA - Yes
NF - Right. Dont go further than that. So this is 28th March and u arranged a meeting by Andrew Moore after easter and your leave?
TA - Yes. There was correspondence to try and get meeting

NF - So this is u to miss Robinson, other theatre staff and Mr Moore. [Reads] Where u say you did meet - was that in ref to meeting in Sept 2023?
TA - Yes

NF - None of those people were DSU, they were all theatre staff?
TA - Yes
NF - even though miss Robinson said issue raised by members of DSU?
TA - Yes.
NF - What transpired was someone from DSU was brought in at last moment?
TA - yes

NF - You saw the March 2024 letter. Go to the letter.
[Finding]
NF - U saw this when it came through. Did u read and consider?
TA - Yes
NF - U saw it was a complaint about bio male in CR and inappropriate conduct?
TA - Yes

NF - And conduct was liable to put F users in state of anxiety
TA - yes concerns clearly in this letter
NF - And concerns about Rose being sexually active?
TA - Yes

NF - Now see "duties to TG staff". It concluded that the writers expected the trust to treat Rose with respect and dignity but also those who find the situation intolerable?
TA - Yes
NF - And proposal to require Rose to change elsewhere?
TA - yes more wider concerns later but yes

NF - Go to 325. 4th April when u saw the letter. U write to Morgan Smith. U say there "are some very concerning behaviours going on here". U saw the complaint as concerning behaviour?

TA - No I saw miss Robinson email as concerning and I was concerned by what I was reading and the escalation and confusion at that point
NF - Whose behaviour was concerning?
TA- one was around a legal letter penned and how that may feel for staff.

NF - I said you described the letter as concerning and you said no and u are now saying yes?
TA - No it was about how the whole matter was escalating.
NF - Its not what youre saying

TA - If behaviour was the wrong word at that point... well. I was concerned about impact on colleagues. Perhaps wording wasn't right
NF - the letter describes behaviour by Rose and F employees feeling upset and situ intolerable. Did that concern u that may raise SG concerns?

TA - Yes I was concerned about the impact, concerns about the letter, concerned generally by the situation
NF - and the scale if it meant that urgent action was needed?
TA - Yes we needed to address the matter and thats why I went straight back after easter to try to understand

NF - We'll stop there for the day
J - back tomorrow at 10 [J reminds TA not to discuss case with anyone]

[Hearing ends. Resumes tomorrow at 10am]

@threadreaderapp please unroll