Thread by @nickwallis

Welcome to Week 2 Day 7 Session 1 of Morrison v Belfast Film Festival at Killymeal House, Belfast. Michele Devlin is giving evidence, again. Here she is arriving.

NC if that was taken down in planning in Sep it’s less plausible it was because of SM - but we say this was part of an airbrushing exercise, taking SM out of BFF
MD I’m sorry what’s your question
NC [repeats q] -

MD no this info came from my marketing manager and she gave me incorrect info re 17 Sep
NC so SM had no work email access from July to 26 November
MD she got it in October
NC well you tucked the password into some paperwork. but she still didn’t get access

SD the C has not complained about her lack of email
NC so she wasn’t seeing hostile or supportive emails
MD I did it to protect my staff
NC not SM
[MD thinks she asking about the staff webpage]

J pls answer the qu’s you are being asked
NC she was not seeing the emails that was being sent to her
MD I don’t know
NC It’s possible there was a flood of emails directly to SM

MD there weren’t
NC ?
MD I’ve looked since and there weren’t - “there were lots of taxi receipts”
NC and she couldn’t put an ooo on? She couldn’t respond to any emails

SD this is not a pleaded issue - it’s not relevant
J where are you going
NC this goes to issue 1 1 K “Consequences” not sure why it’s causing so much difficulty
SD because of the time spent on xe

NC it’s directly relevant - I don’t see how much more relevant it can be
[we continue]
NC so she can’t put an ooo on can she
MD no
NC which means email go unanswered

[As you may have spotted,CloudFlare fell over and twitter went down - it now appears to be back up. The following tweets are made from contemporaneous notes so they read as if in real time, but they are not.]

MD she also had a docs ireland address
NC maybe, but she couldn’t see any BFF emails - and people might think she was being rude
MD or off sick, like she was
NC even off sick she could have put an ooo
MD or I could as I was doing all the IT

NC did you
MD no
NC and you removed her from the shared drive
MD that was not at the same time

NC it was around the same time - so she was effectively as a factory worker locked out of the factory
MD I don’t accept that

NC she had no email access, she was taken off the staff page, she was removed from the shared drive and then you asked for her keys - no wonder she felt she had been de facto suspended

MD says she borrowed SM’s keys and left them for her in the office and that SM could have come into the office at any time.

NC moves on to the trans-identifying man offering manicures and MD’s allegation was thaht SM said “urgh not with it”, calling the TiM it. Stand by it
MD yes
NC shocking and unpleasant

MD very odd - couldn’t quite believe I heard it
NC did you hear it?
MD yes
NC worse - that’s transphobia isn’t it - that’s what it looks like
MD yes

NC why not discipline her for it - could have reflected v badly on her
MD we were the only people in the room
NC and the man doing the manicures
MD the person who was part of the exhibit

NC but if he had heard that it would have reflected v badly on the BFF
MD I don’t know that
NC if she had behaved that way it was certainly misconduct
MD it was odd

NC are you asking the tribunal to believe referring to a TiM as “it” in his presence and in his earshot was not misconduct
MD I was trying to get my head round it - odd
NC it would be gross misconduct nad therefore dismissal wouldn’t it

MD taking someone to task on this would be… and I did take note of it to talk to her about it
NC do you still have that note
MD I don’t know
NC hasn’t been disclosed has it

MD I don’t know. It may well be
NC if it had happened it would be alarming that SM felt able to behave in such a shocking way in front of her manager. She might do it again any time.
MD what’s your q

NC alarming she could behave that way in front of a manager
MD depends on the view of the manager
NC so she thought you might agree with her and could behave how she liked
MD no

NC didn’t discipline her
MD no
NC didn’t raise it at next supervision meeting
MD no

NC and if you’d told her her behaviour was unacceptable we would have heard about it
MD agrees
NC so if this story is true it reflects badly on you as her manager
MD I should have done something about it

NC putting it more strongly you were in gross neglect if your duty
MD I think might have said “that’s a bit much”
NC if that’s true its nowhere near sufficicent
MD no

NC but if it was true it would be clear evidence of transphobia on SM’s part and would need to be addressed in the investigation
MD possibly
NC it would be in the bundle as part of the response to the claim

MD it was in an answer in a q to you
NC it came up in xe of SM
MD it was an answer to your q about SM’s views. I can give you other examples. I heard her talking in the office about someone putting up billboards being paid for by a rich donor “oh I...

wonder if he’s eligible batchelor” and [something something Women’s Rights Network ????]
NC do you know the difference between being Gender Critical and transphobic

MD I would hope so
NC can you give us an example
MD not off the top of my head
NC this allegation about SM’s transphobia is completely made up isn’t it

MD no
NC but there was something in that exhibition which might generate disgust, isn’t there?
[we turn to the bundle]

[NC takes her to an image as part of the exhibition - it is a man with his breasts are in a suction pump.]

I have the image - warning - you may not want to see it

Twitter won't let me post it up - which is odd as I think it was taken from social media

It was an image on display in the gallery when SM allegedly made her transphobic comment. One more go...

I'll have to do some censoring - it won't let me upload it

Here you go...

NC are you aware some men have a sexual fantasy of being milked like a cow
MD no
J where is this taking us
NC what we are seeing is a pornogrpahic images influenced by SF

MD looks like it
NC and this is what autogynophiles do - they like to use abusive images of objectified women- do you know what an AGP is?
MD no

NC this image is sexual harassment of every woman who walks past, especially a woman having to walk past it on her way to work - you knew full well
J are you suggesting MD took her here deliberately
NC no
J what are you suggesting

[NC has lost her thread]
NC you were well aware this image was on dsiplay and the claimant was being exposed to something “truly disgusting” and so that was what gave you the cover to come up with the “lie” that she referred to a TiM as “it”

MD I don’t accept that whatsoever
NC the claim of the case is discrim for political belief - against SM for her GC views - and her 16 April speech. That’s why you’re giving evidence
MD I’m giving evidence because SM has come up with some “flimsy notions” - we were not

disciplining her, we were working actively to get her back into her role in the office
NC you didn’t ever make your conduct about your belief that she was transphobic
MD she kept telling me she wasn’t
NC I think you’re agreeing with me

MD she was organising a rally, she was speaking against her client groups
NC why smear her as a transphobe - which you gave at the beginning of your evidence in chief
MD because I was being asked about her gender critical views

NC try again - what made you think about telling the tribunal she called a man “it”
MD because I was asked about how I knew SM had GC views I was thinking of a series of examples and that one popped into my head.
NC and you still say I asked you that

MD someone in this room did
NC well maybe SD can fill us in later. No further q’s

re-ex

SD you were asked about 3 July email responses
[takes her to “Thanks Michele. Sounds exciting. I'll share this with our organising group in Rainbow Refugees. Our group
email address is [e-mail]
Take care
Catherine”]

SD how would you describe it.
MD as accepting and engaging and the sort of email response I had hoped we would get
[no further re-ex]
[we break for lunch to resume at 1.30pm]

[we have resumed]
SD calles Keara (correct) Paterson (KP)
[she takes the oath]
[she confirms her witness statement is true and accurate account of your evidence]

SD and do you wish to adopt it as your evidence
KP no. I mean yes
SD okay please speak slowly and clearly and do speak up you are v softly spoken
NC you are a senior HR pro with more than 6 years service as per the date of your WS

KP 3 Nov yes
NC you have 5 years of carrying out complex greivances and appeals
KP yes
NC so in July 2023 you would have had 2 to 3 years exp
KP yes

NC your allocation to this grievance was not your choice
KP yes
NC “all the decision making around who was doing what was decided by other people, senior people”
KP yes
NC were you then, quite inexperienced

KP no
NC you are presenting 2 to 3 years as senior are you
[KP says something about prior experience in London]
[NC takes her to the bundle]

NC the policy envisages that grievances should be dealt with at the earliest possible oppo?
KP yes
NC reads “The objective of this procedure is to provide an employee (or ex-employee) who has a

grievance, with the opportunity to have it examined quickly and effectively and where a
grievance is deemed to exist, to have it resolved if possible, at the earliest practicable
moment”

moment”
[NC giving timeline of when grievance opened and grievance began]
NC given you were running the grievance (G) is it fair that no material steps were taken until you took over
KP yes

NC why no material steps taken Aug, Sep, Oct and half way through Nov
KP no
NC so it wasn’t the earliest possible moment
KP can’t comment

NC C complained in her G about the disc investigation into her
KP investigation (iv)
NC the iv began on 5 July - you don’t say this in your statement do you
KP no

NC in your WS you give the reasons for the iv - negative impact on organisation/rep and commercial success
KP yes
NC so you were looking at why the investigation was set up
KP yes

KP yes
NC so you would need to know what evidence there was for starting an investigation - “did they have enough to go on, was it on a reasonable basis”
KP yes

NC quite important you had the evidence so you can have known why they did it
KP my iv was to find out whether there had been any discrimination - I wanted to know the “rationale” for the iv “not the specifics”

NC it’s what they knew at the time they started the iv - not what came after which is relevant
KP yes
[NC takes her to her grievance iv doc]
NC reads “During the investigation hearing with MD on 15th March 2024, she stated that BFF took the

decision to investigate SOG as, 'We wanted to fact find and look into this, from a neutral point as those
organisations had been named. In some point in our history, we have worked with every single one of
those organisations she named. 'Evidence of which can be seen in appendix K. MD further explained

that she had met with SOG and explained her rationale for needing to investigate this, and that before
she had an opportunity to investigate this SOG had gone off sick.”
NC so MD says iv was prompted by SM’s criticisms of the women’s sector in her LWS speech

KP yes she does also say “Furthermore, when discussing the rationale for making the decision to investigate SOG, MD stated
'Staff members have complained, community voluntary complaints, informal and formal complaints

and that is why I decided to look into it.’”
NC so you didn’t review any documentary evidence
KP it’s what she told me
NC so you relied on what MD told you

KP yes
NC you didn’t get any info from Bethany O’Neill
KP no
NC and the truth is it didn’t matter because you knew you weren’t the decision makers in this process.

KP we provide HR services
NC there were four complaints - 2 from outburst arts but no complaints from the women’s sector
KP no
NC and no evidence on damage to rep

NC and no evidence on damage to rep
KP soc med
NC and there was no evidence of damage to commercial success - you weren’t really in a position to interrogate the reason for the iv as you didn’t have any evidence beyond what MD told you

KP and SM and the WS from Moyra Lock etc
NC SM could not know the process
KP she didn’t engage, she didn’t attend the iv

NC stepping back the decision making process about how she is going to be investigated - she’s not going to know anything about
KP seems to agree [she’s gone v quiet]

[NC takes her to her email of 13 Dec 2023 to Lisa Barros D’Sa (LBD)]
NC is there anything there that strikes you as misleading
KP no I’m happy with it

[NC establishes KP was there for note-taking “support and guidance” and LBD is carrying out the iv]
NC you didn’t ask any q’s of MC did you
KP no
NC and you didn’t ask any qs of MD either did you

KP no I don’t think so
NC takes her to this email “Dear Sara,
I hope this email finds you well. As per your response on the 29th of December, in which we had offered

you the opportunity to attend another grievance hearing, you declined and stated you wished to respond
via email.
As you are aware, Keara Paterson, Senior HR Consultant from Think People is assisting me in this

investigation. As part of this investigation, we have some questions attached, which will provide us with
nore information on some of the allegations you raised in your grievance.

If you could please review the attached questions and respond to me no later than Monday 15 January
2024 by 4pm. Please also include the names of any witnesses, or evidence you feel will be relevant to our
investigations.

If you have any questions regarding this please get in touch.
Kind regards
Lisa”

NC So LBD is taking charge of the written q’s too
KP yes
NC “the reality is that your role was little more than an administrative role wasn’t it?”
KP “no”

NC “can you recall any occ on which you gave HR advice and said this is what you need to do from an HR perspective?”
KP scripts, line of q, procedure, Teams calls, the report was written by myself in convo with LBD

NC so if all relevant material had been disclosed we would see emails from you, commentary on those draft scripts
SD such info has been disclosed - and there is a suggestion it hasn’t

NC fair point. I apologise - there should be in existence email corr between you and LBD
KP there should be, yes
NC and written advice from you
KP there were mainly Teams convos - brief

NC and do you normally record them
KP no
NC would you send an email
KP normally I would if it was unclear or there was a long conversation but in this instance LBD was happy

with what I told her
NC we go to note of meeting with Mary Lindsay - she’s part time, junior to MD and not a board member
KP yes
NC you ask q’s of her in her iv

KP yes
NC so you felt comfortable q-ing ML in the way you didn’t feel comfortable MD or members of the board
KP it wouldn’t be uncommon for me to follow up with a q - no a question of not being comfortable. In this occurance there needed to be some qs for clarification

[NC goes to 4 July 2024
NC you wrote this report. You say “I” throughout. - but this was LBD’s decision, wasn’t it
KP with advices from me
NC why didn’t LBD sign it

KP can’t recall
NC it was to give it the indication of independence
KP it was independent - they engaged an independent company - companies who don’t want to do be impartial don’t do that

NC would your view on that change if you knew that the person who wrote the report was the person who made the decision to start the investigation
[KP is confused. J asks her to break it down]

NC if LBD was one of the people who took the decision to investigate, it would make it impossible for you and her together to run a fair iv as to whether that was proper
KP my role is to look at the facts and the evidence and give my professional advice. If I had known LBD

was involved - there was never any pushback from the advice or dispute I gave her
NC you say you weren’t sure whose decision it was to instigate the iv - any theories
KP “I’m not going to give hypotheticals”

NC but you can’t iv whether the decision to make an iv was proper if you don’t know who decided
KP can’t comment. I was given the evidence which was a couple of pages of complaints, soc med complaints and the WS’s

NC but if someone says to their employer you made a decision to investigate me which was discriminatory because you wanted to punish me for my protected belief isn’t the first thing you do is ask the person made the decision and ask why

KP I asked MD and she showed me the complaints
NC so you think MD started the iv
KP yes
NC but you apply your mind to asking who started the iv

KP I was more interested in whether or not the decision was discriminatory
[back to the bundle - G procedure - timescales]
NC doesn’t say anything about an employee appeal, does it? Doesn’t say an appeal has to be made in 5 days

[KP is reading]
NC you ask her to formulate an appeal in 5 days
KP yes
NC that was never going to happen - you said this was a complex case - she was off sick with mental health

KP her response late and it was considered. It was standard practice to stop it “dragging on”.
NC it might be standard practice, but don’t you think you should have varied your practice in this case
KP accepts

[xe ends - SD asks for 10 minute break for re-ex as he is waiting on docs which will show KP’s comms with LBD]

I'm going to end this thread here and re-start another thread for the final witness of the day.

Thanks for reading - sorry about the disruption to communications. It was genuinely the internet's fault.

If you would like to receive a nightly newsletter report of what has happened today, please consider making a one-off donation here. Your subscriptions have allowed me to continue tweeting and reporting and I'm very grateful:

genderblog.net/donate/

🧵 ends

@threadreaderapp unroll please