Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly be live tweeting the morning session of day 11 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 & sex discrimination.

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

Our full coverage of this case and associated press articles can be found at

Please note that we report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a verbatim record of proceedings.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/eight-nurses…

Abbrevs:
C/Ns - Claimants - the Darlington nurses
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for Claimants
R/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
RH - Rose Henderson, male colleague who claims a female identity
SC - Simon Cheetham KC, barrister for respondents

(E)J - (Employment) Judge

KD - Karen Danson, claimant, nurse at DMH
BH - Bethany Hutchison, claimant, nurse at DMH
CH - Carly Hoy, claimant, nurse at DMH
JP - Jane Peveller, claimant, nurse at DMH
MG - Mary Annice Grundy, claimant, nurse at DMH

TH - Tracey Hooper, claimant, nurse at DMH
ST - Sharen Trevarrow, claimant, nurse at DMH
LL - Lisa Lockey, claimant, nurse at DMH
SS - Siobhan Sinclair, Housekeeper & Well-being officer, at DMH, now retired

AT - Andrew Thacker, Dir of Workforce & Organisational Development at Trust

TA - Tracy Atkinson, Head of Workforce and Organisational Development at Trust
AM - Andrew Moore, Head of Workforce Experience Manager at Trust
JB - Jillian Bailey, Workforce Experience Manager at Trust
TW - Tracy Wainwright, Clinical Lead for theatre at DMH

JR - Jody Robinson, Clinical Lead Manager at DMH
SW - Sue Williams, HR Business Manager

DMH/H/Hospital - Darlington Memorial Hospital
Ix - Internal investigation
Cx - Complaint
D - Disclosures
CR/CF - Changing room or changing facilities
WS - Witness Statement
WA - WhatsApp

DSU - Day Surgery Unit
RP - Resolution Procedure
TITWP - Transitioning in the Workplace policy

We anticipate a 10am start time.

J Before we hear from SW, on the matter of WS requested. We dont have the facility. I'm saying this for the members of the public who have asked. We can only share via our CVP which requires someone to scroll through the document. So it isnt feasible for us to do this. We wont email

J The solicitors setting up a system hasnt been possible. Part of the problem is asking for WS now. Might have been possible to do w more notice
SC We're squarely behind practicality issue. There's also a cost implication
NF I've nothing to add.
SC We can say we've tried

J We're constrained by physical space and IT practicalities. That's the only explanation we have for that member of public.
NF There's one page of doc that SC has agreed to I want to put to SW
NF We might give it to the witness at a later moment
J Thank you. Bring in SW

[SW swears on Bible]
J Take a seat please
SC Name and job title please
SW My name is Susan Jane Williams and I am HR Business Compliance Manager/Officer [sound glitchy]
SC [Correcting some page nos in SW's witness statement]

[SW affirms her WS]
NF Good morning. Have u been in the ET the whole time
SW Yes
NF Yr role and responsibilities in para2. In 23-24 u were compliance business w/in which
SW Workforce planning reporting within HR to Ms Nicholson, AT and Morgan Smith

NF In whose team
SW Reporting to TA in HR
NF Throughout 23
SW Yes, was in compliance and HR
NF Responsible for H&S
SW Yes
NF Are u aware of workforce H&S rules
SW Aware of them, yes. Didnt think wld be relevant

NF This was yr 1st awareness of these issues
YEs, W Mr Brockbank another HR manager
NF Who had Lesley spoken with
SW I dont know. We track case progress. It cld just have been awareness of issue
NF Can u see the email attachment. We cant see the bottom of it

J I'm lost
NF Email from CG.
SW It cld be that one, yes
J The one at p282 from CG of 22 Feb at 9.41 corresponds to this email, correct? Looking at Alison Leybury's email to u. Did it contain the 22 Feb email from CG
SW The date and time correspond

NF U seem surprised re the attachment. Was the email on 277 also sent then
SW I dont know.
NF We understand u had oversight of disclosures, D.
SW Yes, I liased w witnesses and had oversight
NF Look at the supp bundle

NF This is yr S statement giving custodians of docs, listing various names. On p406 u see a sentance re not searching for various docs and refs certain words. Not every custodian used every key word in the list
SW The email I sent was to those ppl and were asked for these wordings

NF As well as other key words, were key words specified on this list
Only those. The key words [missed - sound]
NF If every custodian searched for every word it wld have been unmanageable
May have been. No advice was given to them re filtering

NF Were u advised re what might not be relevant SW SW We sent e'thing across, so no
NF [new bundle at p33] We see concerns are defined and then reads re concerns being reported in 1 month
SW Yes, is the expectation
NF Various duties are allocated incl manager being fair

NF [reads re speed and being in house]
SW Yes, I agree
NF In house means not in the tribunal
Yes
NF Were u aware that concerns re RH using the CR had been raised back to July 23
SW Not before the Ix. I became aware when became the Ix officer in July 24

NF They raised their concerns or Cx w Ali Quinn
Yes
NF Wld be at an informal stage
SW It cld do, yes
NF [reads from policy]
SW Yes, AQ was one of LMs
NF They were told to put up w this due to inclusivity of NHS
Yes I heard from their evidence

NF So not resolved to their satisfaction
Yes
NF So we're looking at going to stage 2
SW Yes, if not resolved at stage 1 wld go on
NF Up to manager to resolve
SW Yes, I was involved at stage 2
NF It doesnt happen then, not until July
SW Yes. That's when I got involved

NF U have to establish the facts. If witnesses frightened that wld undermine Ix?
SW Some ppl might feel that. It cld do in some circumstances
NF [sound issues] In bundle 3 on p292, this is letter sent July 24. It says [reads re trust allocating an ext Ix officer]. They're not named.

NF When was Miss Newton named
SW We wrote to letter sigs after this letter and Susan Newton's name was incl then. In Aug/Sept time.
NF Do u know there was corres w solicitors and their attendance at interviews
SW Not about SN.
NF Go to bundle 1

NF Letter from PS in July 24 asking for the name of IO (Ix officer) and asking for attendance. Were u privy to this
SW I cant recall this
NF Response saying no
Sw Not w that reply [sound glitchy]
NF Do u recall this [another doc]
SW I dont

SW Trust received in late June
NF The policy didnt allow or prohibit solic attending
SW The T wld maintain the position as outlined in the policy. Have never had ext ppl in an internal Ix
NF Do u recall [sound]
SW No
NF Looking at Roses's grievance (Gx)

NF Also go to bundle 2 on p449, an email from u to Miss Newton on 17 July. U say attach the ?. My understanding is u communicating Roses Cx under the resolution
Correct
NF On 29 July u interview RH with Her related to the Gx
Yes
NF Just the Gx exclusively
SW Yes

NF And for reference, that's in the bundle, no 3 at p998.
SW Yes, that's correct. It's the Ix notes
NF Roses Gx overlapped the 26 sig Cx?
SW Were common aspects but wldnt say it mirrored it. On her resoln form was obvs what her concern was
NF Well yes, but did u not so a high deg of overlap

SW There was some overlap.
NF U interview Rose about Rose's Gx. Go to [new page]
NF Shld say there were other interviews related to RHs Gx eg AM at p607.
SW That relates to 27 March letter. The Ix SN was doing.
NF U interveiwed Rose related to Roses's Cx
SW Yes relates to that

SW Interviewed AM and Miss Atkinson on same day
NF These later notes arent incl in the Appendices [reads re absolute confidentiality and dont discuss w others] U were aware of ET claim and the media involvement
Yes
NF So too late to insist on confid
SW No, is in all our internal processes

SW Its to maintain integrity of process
NF Its a collective Cx
Yes
NF Isnt it saying the C cant collaborate
SW We asked for a lead complainant
NF So just deal w a nominated spokesperson
SW Yes is our standard practice but we didnt have one in this sitn

NF So they pass all the info over to all the others
SW Yes
NF On p535, ?to CG on 9 July 24 from AT. A similar sort of letter about the RP and following it.
Yes
NF There's a para about handling info in the process but not one of a sim nature to what we've just described on p535

SW Yes but we had a lead complainant in CG. She was the spokesperson. This is what was said in letter of March 24
NF It doesnt contain the confid para. If thats standard wording on 659 it doesnt appear in this leeter on p?
SW I dont kno. I didnt write the latter

It's not identical but similar
NF Letter was hand delivered to the ward, p 619.
Yes
NF And handed personally by Ms Copper, assoc dir of nursing
NF How many levels above the nurses
Yes. She's 4 levels above
NF [reads re inapprop action cld lead to discip action]

NF So the Cs were handed a letter w that para heralding an Ix into their concerns. Wld that para as alomost the final piece of information. y've heard that some ppl found it untimidating
SW Yes. I can understand some ppl feeling anxious about it

[sound issues]
NF The Ix then progressed?
SW Yes [go to new bundle p1004]
NF Email fro u to Rose cced to Nicholson [reads re 3 ppl have withdrawn their concerns but not given names]
SW Yes, I understood as they's withdrawn

NF A further msg from u to Rose [reads re interviewing taking place and lists the now 5 who have now withdrawn]
Yes
NF [new bundle] Report at the end of the process and u list the 6 who have withdrawn their names
Yes
NF Incl Sarah Naylor
Yes
NF [new bundle incl your email to her on p497]

NF Your email of Sept 24. Do you want to read it through? Her response is on the prev page at p496. [reads from it about not wanting to cont w the RP] She's saying I dont want to continue w the process but not from the Cx

SW I read it as that. I wrote back to her about withdrawing from the concern and she didnt come back to me
NF U interveiwed Ms Naylor w Sue. U record her as saying in response to 1st hearing about the letter [reads re finding from Beth and thought wasnt a nice letter]

SW Alll the amendments are by SN
NF [reads re her saying I do support the staff] Do u understand me? The text in pale red, looks like what she wants removed, re it not being a nice letter
[discussion re highlighted texts and which bits were to be removed from the transcript]
J Does this matter in the scheme of things?

NF It will become relevant. On p501, from p499, the text to Miss Naylor...this went to her
SW She's highlighted it and I took it to be an amendment. I dont understand what she meant
NF Then lower down she talks about May 24 mtg w TA.

She says she'd rather get changed in car park than lose her job
SW I dont know about ? It's not in the notes
SC [intervenes]
NF This relates to harassment of the cs
J The Cs wont have known about his so how is it relevant

NF It relates to the nature of the process
J Where does this interview take us
NF The Cs case is the process was not only lacking but harmful.
SC But harassment relates to ?
NF There's the time taken..
J I'm concerned about time now
NF Read p991...

J We're not a public enquiry so where does this take us
NF It's 4b. The Cs case is declining to address their concerns is an act of harassment. The RP neglect is culpable as harassment [sound glitch]
J I'm concerned about going down multiple rabbit holes

J Is this a good moment for a break?
NF Yes, was about to launch into something new so it is
J [Reminds witness about speaking rules]

SESSION ENDS

@threadreaderapp unroll