Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will shortly return for the second morning session on day 11 of evidence in the employment tribunal of Ms B Hutchison & others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust.

This morning's earlier session is here:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1985994983862677533

SN = Susan Newton, external investigator

[We return but no visuals]
NF I'm taking u to another correction of Miss Naylors piece [reads re bio sex and husbands] U put her down as withdrawn
Yes
NF Were u shaw she'd done this?
Yes
NF To p436. An email from another sig

NF Another signatory regarding the process. I'll give you a moment to read this. She was also marked as withdrawn
Yes
NF [reads] She's making it clear she has a concern and wants Rose in a different facility. In repsonse u write at p437

NF An invite to an interview. when she has this interview the 1st Q she's asked by SN is if she wants to withdraw from yr orig letter
Yes
NF So your 1st interest is not to Ix but whether to withdraw
SW We wanted clarity
NF On p711,

[visuals have resumed]
NF Msg from u to Sn re Linda Wood who u also said had withdrawn [reads re her not wanting to be involved] Did u ask Miss Wood if she still supported the Cs
No
NF Did u interview her
SW She had a v ill family member and a manager said she didnt want to continue

SW She then emailed to confirm this
NF Now to p175. She says in responding to the harassment claim by Rose she says she's upset and thinks the policy is unfair. The policy is wrong
SW She didnt want to continue the Cx. She didnt correct any of the notes and confirmed this

NF There was a consistent response of ppl withdrawing once Rose put in her Cx
SW People were withdrawing, yes
NF [new bundle] Email from u in July 30th to SN attaching interview notes w RH. U explain that CG

[reads re withdrawing concern that changed to no interest in continuing the CX. Change made by SN
Yes
NF So CG only included as withdrawn because of SN
SW We knew CG had said she wasnt the lead C. I didnt withdraw Clare. this was b4 the Ix started.

SW Susan drafted the Qs for the IX and I added in collab w her
NF Email to u from SN re Qs for witnesses
Yes
NF U finalised the Qs for Cs and witnesses
SW Yes
NF Reading thru the Qs, their focus is on the bringing of the Cx rather than its substance

SC No, Q4 is about the substance of the Cx
NF These Qs ask about how ppl heard of concerns, whether approached re a petition, how they find out about the Cx, Did they know who was approached. Was a Q re the concerns but no programmed Q about why the person is aggrieved

SC There are specific Qs
NF The Qs focus on how the Cx came about rather than the substance
SW These were the Qs they were to be asked of the signatories
NF These are users of the CR rather than just witnesses. The heart of the Cx was Rose using the CR
Yes

NF This was controversial as Rose is a bio man
SW Yes, for those raising the Cx
NF This wasnt addressed in the Qs - a bio man using the CR. They were asked about the concerns they'd heard about. When did u 1st hear, how and what were they.

NF You were involved in interviewing Kirsten Coutts (KS) Maiden and married name. U invite her to interview and she'd had the letter at 263 from AT in July
Yes
NF Also yr letter re Roses GX althought that's no in the Gx. She understood the interview was re Rose's Gx

SW [she answers re emails on p266] It's about the concerns in letters on March and April
NF Yes. [sound glitching] At p272, we see KS wasnt sure about that. Have u read it recently
SW Not recently [reads]
NF U respond on p271

NF Here we see the 1st separation. I took u to an email before the break. We'll need to interview later re the Gx, this was decided to be later at a diff time.
Yes
NF The interview notes are on p285, KS said u interviewed her and gave yr pronouns
SW I introduced myself as Miss Williams

NF She says u interveiwed
SW I dont recall this. You'll see [sound issues]
NF We do see handwritten notes at points in the bundle.
SW Mine were shredded.
NF She felt u leaded the interview and not SN
SW SN led the interveiw
NF U chased her re the minutes. An email at p290

NF Take a moment to read this. She's saying [reads re shld have stopped the interview / was confrontational and no emphasis on finding a resoln] She wanted a resoln re the CR
SW [missed]
NF Principle problem was about a male using the CR
SW It was one of the concerns

NF It isnt raised at all
SW It was addressed in the outcome
NF It prompts withdrawal and causing her to feel confronted
SC I think thats a submission rather than a Q
SW I cant comment how she felt
NF Her response is on p289
Yes

NF [reads re resolution] Did you not understand [sound glitch]
NF Why did you ask
SW For clarity
NF Turn to p325. Invitation to interview for Miss Dennis who'd had the same info
Yes
NF The notes from her interview are on p?

NF She says I signed the letter to promote Rose, me and e'one else. When u hear colleagues talking about a M in the CR. She's asked about where did u hear concerns from and who approached u to sign. She says BH and in honesty I wish I hadnt

J Again, are u taking us to the docs to read
NF It shld be obvious she's frightened
SW SHe's frightened of losing her job
NF She's expressed that in response to Qs from SN. The Qs dont address her concerns.
SW We ask later
NF The Qs are intimidating

SW She says she didnt want it to go this far and she mentions the press
NF [new doc] An email to you from Debra Taylor who'd had the same correspondence as those above
SW In response to Gx from Rose [reading]
NF She was also treating the 2 matters as combined. Did u correct her

SW No I didnt respond to this email
NF Her interview is on p268. She's asked who had the concerns. When reassured she cld give names she gives Miss Dennis thought RH looking at her. Did u go back yo Miss Dennis
No
SC Is there a partic Q that needs to be put?
NF U received the statements in Oct 24
Yes

NF And you had a further interview w Rose in November
SW Yes
NF [new bundle] On 18 Nov. Y'd had Cs statements for about a month
Yes
NF This relates to the Gx cos of the 26 signatories
Yes
NF Did Rose have a statement
No
NF The statements had a lot of detail re Roses behaviour

NF But this detail wasnt put to Rose was it
SW Signs on the door were.
NF Yes
SW SN also mentions re hanging around and playing games on the phone.
NF Are u saying they were put to her
SW Thats what Susan put to Rose

NF [reads re next steps in ?] [sound glitching] U explain that mtg w Rose in RP but would be looked at under diff policies. Her Gx was moved to ?? How was it decided
SW In disc w Rose, SN and her rep Ronnie
NF ANy notes from that mtg
SW I dont know
NF So grievance remained hanging over the Cs
Yes

NF And remains over them to this day
SW Yes. And they'd have to declare this remained in palce
NF Were the Cs consulted at all
SW It wld be under the RP. In hindsight they shld have been made aware Rose's resolution was paused.
NF U took against the Gx by the 26. U thought they were wrong about Rose being in the CR

No
NF U didnt want to consider Rose shld be elsewhere
SW That wasnt in the remit of the Ix
NF That was the heart of the Cx.
SW Sn broke it into 5 places. This was the policy at the time.
NF SN didnt even know about the policy when she started
NF U didnt tell her at the start of thr Ix

SW I did send her the TITWP policy at some/one stage
NF Go to p164 of bundle 2. We see SN writes to you in ? 2025 and had already written the draft report at htis stage
Yes. I assume it had already happened but clearly not
NF U say is oversight. Shldnt u say that the v thing the 26 are complaining about are allowed

SW She's in charge
NF Surely u shld be helping her. U kept the policy from her
No. She's experienced
NF U take that as resoln of the Cx
NF U were determined that the 26 Cx shld go nowhere

SW Absolutely not
NF And that Rose's Cx shld be looked w/out regard to the 26
SW Absolutely not
NF I have one more matter to cover I think. I need to show u the loose document before you
J Where shld we put this?
NF Add to supplemental bundle I shld think. Become p434

NF U saw an eg of corres w KS re clarifn of what she wanted. Which u copied to other Cs
Yes
NF This email is to trusts Solic from the Cs solic that goes tog w a page from the Ix report on p2139 of bundle ?

NF In relation to whats at the top. Email re desired outcomes and 3 responses were received but none since April. The email puts ? into context. It says we're instructed re the RP duplicates these proceeding / [schedule of loss is mentioned] [very fast]

NF Now go to p64. A doc called draft recommendations prepared for the ET that copies the April email. Thats Dec 24 so b4 the report was finalised. Did u see this correspondence
SW No. I wasnt shown any of this
NF Excuse me a moment.

NF Excuse me J. I'm aiming to keep this shorter
J If you want to take instructions by all means
[pause]
NF I've asked u about the report on the central issue. it left the Cx where it started. Just acceptance that Rose used CR
SW [missed]
NF U knew this was going to happen
SW It wasnt in the remit

NF U knew this wld be stressful for the Cs and wld nt resolve things
SW Stressful for all. The remit wasnt to review the policy
NF So the stress on the Cs was for nothing but to impose ? And make their working lives more difficult

[no sound]
J Is that u covering the purpose point. As high as yr putting it. Bearing in mind statute 6. yr putting that the Cx shld go nowhere but Rose's shld go regardless of the feelings about him.

J And the process was to make the Cs lives difficult and to create a hostile and intim enveronment. I'm not sure the witness understands this. U have to put this directly like u did to Rose
NF In fairness yes
J we apol for talking over you

NF We've asked u about the stressful impact of this and the GX hanging over. The purpose u had in this process was [sound gone] [Heard the word hostile]
J Is that your questioning. We may have Qs.
SC I have a Q
J We may break the rules and us leave the room

SC I'm happy to break w tradition. Go to p? U tried to recall when Cs told SN wld be the investigator. Was it this letter u had in mind?
SW Yes it was
J Why dont we leave whilst we think if we have any Qs. You'll be left in an awkward silence or talking about the football..

J ..but you cant talk about the case. We'll be as quick as possible
[background chatter]

J Thank you everyone. We have no further Qs and SC has unusually completed his Q 1st
NF That completes the Cs evidence

J We have no sitting tomorrow. We'll have a shortened version of Prof P on Friday which will be finished by lunchtime
NF Yes
[discuss submissions timetable]

J Thank you everybody.

SESSION ENDS

@threadreaderapp unroll