Thread by @nickwallis

This is Session 2 of Day 2 of Morrison v BFF.

For Session 1 of day 2 look-ee here:

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1988188476635045985?s=20

For all of Day 1 - it's here. All the tweets are being manually extracted and reformatted by Andrew, Master of the Dark Arts, in London. A small percentage of your kind donations go to him as Andrew hosts the GenderBlog website and is a very nice man.

genderblog.net/live-tweets/

As this is a new thread I will repeat my warning from before. ALL MY TWEETS ARE SUMMARIES AND CHARACTERISATIONS OF WHAT IS BEING SAID. NOTHING IS A DIRECT QUOTE UNLESS IT IS IN "DIRECT QUOTES"

[we are back sitting]
SD judge before we recommence someone has taken a photo within the confines of the court building and published it on social media - it's a criminal offence in court I don't know the rules with regard to tribunal court
J it's strictly forbidden to do this

Fiona McAnena puts her hand up and admits it was her and that the photo was taken in the waiting area of her and a friend
SD confirms the law requires no pictures in the entire building or precincts
J tells FA to take the photo down and reminds everyone of the law

[we move on - discussing the grievance process ongoing by late 2023]

[SM has been asked to respond to a series of questions in Jan]
SD by 30 Jan we did not get answers to the questions - so there's a chase email then asking for them by early Feb
SM yep
SD The respondent (R - the BFF) gets a series of answers between 7 and 28 Feb 2024
SM yep

SD you were asked to review
SM yes
SD so you were given every oppo you wanted to put forward any info re your grievance
SM yes

SD on 4 July 2024 you get the grievance outcome
SM yes
SD of 7 points of grievance, six were not upheld and one was partially upheld.
SM yes
SD you get a full investigation report
SM yes

SD grievance panel iv'd SM Mark Cousins (MC) and another and took evidence from you and a Ms Lock
SM yes
SD then 33 pieces of relevant evidence attached to the report
SM yes
SD so although you disagreed with it it was comprehensive
SM yes absolutely.

Grievance outcome:
" regard to your claim that the decision to instigate a n investigation and publicising of this
decision amounts to unlawful and discriminatory treatment o n account of a perception of your
views; this point is not upheld.
• In regard to your claim that you should be able to speak about your views and believe you have
been subjected to less favourable treatment, on account of having expressed those views and
that unlawful deductions have been made; this point is not upheld.
• In regard t o your claim that you believe the employer has instigated an investigation against you,
with no specific allegations; this point is not upheld.
• I n regard to your claim that you believe your employer has acted i n a way that makes your
workplace a hostile environment for you; this point i s partially upheld. Whilst the evidence does
not suggest that BFF had acted i n a manner to make the environment hostile, the decision t o post
information regarding an internal investigation publicly on Twitter, can b e viewed as a violation
o f GDPR restrictions.
• In regard to your claim that Mr Mark Cousins was critical towards you and 'did nothing to help'
you; this point i s not upheld.
- In regard to your point that you believe you have been subjected to disciplinary punishments,
outside the employer's disciplinary rules; this point is not upheld.
• In regard to your point that you have received n o communication, formal or informal to provide
assistance to occupational health; this point i s not upheld."

Notes from grievance outcomes:
"It is evident from the aforementioned evidence, that numerous client and member of the public
complaints had been sent over the space of July to BFF. The evidence pack in total contains 12 pages
of numerous complaints, made via email and publicly about SOG role within BFf as their Inclusion Officer. The evidence would suggest that BFF had come under extreme pressure to respond and deal
with the attendance and public speaking of SOG at this event."

SD so this is not about your views, the necessity of the investigation is about the complaints. I know you don't agree, but that is what they are saying.
SM yes

More grievance outcome notes:
"he tribunal established in the Forstater v CD Europe case?, that for a belief to warrant protection, it
must not infringe upon the rights of others. This case highlighted that while employees have the right
to uphold gender-critical beliefs, employers should consider how these views are expressed. If a n
employee causes distress or provokes others, even i f their belief is protected, i t does not automatically
mean that a n employer should accept o r ignore such behaviour. Therefore, the evidence would suggest
that SOG actions had impacted the BFF to an extent that i t had caused such a reputational effect which
could not b e ignored."

SD you were locked out of your email and MD sent you the password to your email to your work account
SM yes
SD this was a mistake
SM I don't know what it was
SD are you saying MD deliberately sent you your email password to the wrong account so she had a record that she'd

... sent it.
SM I don't know why she did it, but I asked for my password several times
SD you were off sick - you didn't need your email
SM but I was still an employee - I should have access
SD and you say you were taken off the shared drive
SM yes
SD you know it costs money per

... person on the shared drive
SM I don't know
SD you don't accept that's why it was done
SM no it was in combination with everything else
SD and you say that you were aggrieved not to be in the team programme for the event in late 2023 - even though you weren't part of it

SM in isolation it wouldn't be a problem, but I was taken off the shared drive, had to give my keys back, lost my email access, removed from the webpage "I felt like I was being erased"

SD on the keys MD says there were 3 sets of keys
SM no there were a lot more than that
SD you could still get into the office
SM yes when it was open
SD MD says she needed the keys to give to others
SM in context with everything else...

SD you complain the staff page was removed from the website
SM yes
SD it wasn't just your page it was everyone's
SM yes absolutely
SD so you were treated the same as everybody else
SM yes
SD "this was in the context of a heated, even nasty campaign against you online"

SM "yes and it coincided with a new page about LGBT inclusion"
SD that's in dispute, but "is this not an example of your employer trying to dampen down" the online campaign against you. "it's not about discrimination"
SM [disagrees]

SD your grievance about the investigation, which never took place, was not upheld.
SM agrees
SD fourth point of grievance - that workplace was a hostile environment - that was partially upheld
SM yes

SD that publicly disclosing the fact of the investigation was not right
SM yes
SD but the outcome says the hostile environment was not intentional - it's just that it was a possible GDPR lapse in disclosing this info.

SM yes
SD so it was not a whitewash - this was partial vindication
SM yes
SD after a comprehensive investigation of your grievance.
SM yes

SD points out grievance against MC was not upheld
SM agrees
SD sixth point of your grievance was a disciplinary process outside bound - telling people about the grievance, being asked to work from home, losing keys, emails, shared drive etc.
SM yes

SD you accept you were not ever suspended
SM yes
SD and this point was not upheld
SM yes
SD final point about assistance for OH
SM yes
SD but you did see OH
SM yes [she laughs]

SD and there was a report from Dr Black
SM yes
SD after the grievance outcome you decided to appeal it
SM yes
SD you had a grievance appeal meeting on 30 Sep 2024
SM yes
SD the meeting was long - they listened to you
SM yes

SD before we get to the outcome - you launched a claim against your employer
SM yes
SD and started crowdfunding
SM my solicitor did
SD but you looked at the page and the responses
SM yes

[SD is handing out pages from the crowdfunder to panel and claimant team and SM]
SD that's the page
SM yes
SD you wanted money from the public saying you'd been suspended
SM yes
SD but you hadn't been suspended
SM yes
SD so at the very least was misleading
SM yes
SD a lie?
SM I can't answer that, I don't know the legal language
SD certainly an untruth
SM yes - I had never been formally suspended
SD you've never been informally suspended either
SM yes

SD you were asking for money from the public on the basis of an untruth
SM it said de facto suspend
SD "de facto" was only added later and you weren't even de facto suspended
SM no one complained or asked for their money back
SD if you are prepared to put an untruth like this in your statement, doesn't this say something about your credibility
SM I don't know

[Back to grievance appeal outcome]
[it's a long letter]
SD goes to final point "The grievance outcome has erred i n not considering the length o f time that elapsed before any action was
taken o r the fact that action was only taken after I had requested it."
Outcome: "This appeal point is partly upheld; the reasons for this decision are included i n the attached report."

SD so this wasn't a whitewash
SM yes

SD And the reasoning here was that the overall time the grievance took too long - and that was partially because you canceled some meetings too
SM yes - "it was a very difficult time for me"
SD takes her to her letter of resignation

SD asks her to read it to herself.
It reads: "Dear Michele and Lisa,
I am now i n receipt o f the Grievance Appeal outcome and am most disappointed with
the findings contained within.
The purpose of my raising the grievance was an attempt to bring the unlawful
discrimination o f holding protected beliefs to m y employer BFF's attention and t o
disclose that BFF's actions were likely t o fail to comply with its legal obligations and
that my health and safety, their employee, was endangered.
I wished to give BFF an opportunity to recognise this, and to clear their reputation
and salvage any remaining relationship.
However, the investigation manifestly failed to do this and, further, I have had a
misconduct investigation left hanging over m e which has never been properly
extinguished nor resolved.
I take the view that the grievance investigation failed t o properly address m y
concerns and subjected me t o detriment and BFF has achieved their desire of
excluding me for my legally-held beliefs. There is clearly no room in the...

... rganisation for anyone who does not comply with their progressive, pro-LGBTQ
agenda.
This was made extremely clear in the disclosure of the WhatsApp Group chat
between the Board Members which amply evidenced there was no way back for me
in the organisation, despite no proper, balanced or fair investigation ever having
taken place.
Sadly this outcome has extinguished any hope or confidence I ever had about going
back t o work and I consider I have no choice but to tender my resignation with
immediate effect.
Yours sincerely,
Sara"

SD nowhere here does it say that this was a misconduct hearing - this was about your grievance appeal outcome
SM yes
SD you resigned five days after your GA outcome
SM yes
SD there's no chance for BFF to start the investigation in that period is there
[something about BFF doing something similar before]

SD so you think they should have resurrected the investigation in those 5 days
SM yes
SD not to give you a bit of time and space
SM no
SD so even tho you had already started your discrimination case you would have returned to work when ready, were it not for the GA outcome

SM yes
SD you don't have a case to resign over the GA outcome, but you obviously disagree which is why you resigned
[SD suggests a break for lunch as he's about to switch to a new subject. Also says he will definitely finish SM's xe today.]

[J happy to break for lunch. Asks SM if she's okay. SM is okay. We reconvene at 2pm]
Will end the thread here and start a new one after lunch.