Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.
I will also note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

I think JH would be very similar to ED in manner and evidence. Not someone the respondent would want representing their side in this, and showing they were fair and balanced.

But I wonder why ST's side did not call JH as a witness, since their claim rests so strongly on her recommendations?
Maybe they doubted she could actually defend them well in x-exam, but under that logic they should not have called ED...

Oh, of course I understand why she's not been called. I just wish she wasn't able to walk away from the mess. No doubt she'll pop up in a Director of Bollocks non-job somewhere else in a few months time and blithely carry on.

I can start off the c&p, but may shout later...

From TT:

^The employment tribunal of Tempest v DEFRA and Rural Payments Agency continues today, 7 July. Expected start time, not before 10 am. t.co/Cn1G8K5W9F^

Our previous reporting, background information on the case, witness statements (after witnesses are sworn), opening notes from counsel and other relevant documents can be found on our Substack.
^t.co/FQaLG5tBt2^

Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene.

We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs. Please consider subscribing to our Substack, link in bio.

A reminder that our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith.

We expect that the cross examination of Nicola Bettesworth, DEFRA Chief People Officer by Helen Hogben, to resume this morning.
Abbreviations that may be used are below.

J - Employment Judge S.D. Robertson
P - one or other of the two lay panel members
ST/C - Samantha Tempest, claimant
HH - Helen Hogben, barrister for claimant
DEFRA/R1 - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, first respondent

RPA/R2 - Rural Payments Agency, second respondent
Rs - First and second respondents
AL - Alexander Line, Respondents' Barrister
SEEN - Sex Equality and Equity Network - Civil Service SEEN-DEFRA - the DEFRA branch of SEEN

NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for SEEN as intervenor
CS: Civil Service
IX: Investigation
Grv: Grievance
WS: Witness Statement

We will return when the hearing gets under way.

I can c&p this afternoon.

I was expecting JH to be someone of Isla Bumba's (inflated but middling) rank!

JH is, at least, evidence that ST and ED were pawns in a much higher level failed heist.

From TT:

WFTCHTJ

Looks like we will begin soon. Participants and observers are being admitted to the hearing room.

J morning everyone, we are continuing with NB's evidence
HH good morning NB, just let me find the page I need. We were talking y'day about post on page 125, and look at the WS of Carolyn Airs (CA).
J - it's not at the front of the witness bundle, what para
HH - para 25, CA

sets out procedure for moderation before Dec 2022 (?) and before PoC (principles of communication) moderation done by DDTS (DEFRA IT). Moderation was reactive,
NB yes
HH no PoC in place at that time
NB correct we relied on our code of conduct and expectation of professional

behaviour
HH the decision had been made to allow SEEN in DEFRA and for them to be on Yammer, a decision had been made that the expression of GC views on Yammer would be permitted
NB we recognised that people would use that platform to express a range of views and that would

GC views. These expressed as individual views.
HH you took no steps to intervene in this decision to allow GC views on Yammer
NB Yammer widely used, and when I received CAs briefing I saw no basis on which to proactively limit use of Yammer (Y)
HH no basis to proactively

NB correct we relied on our code of conduct and expectation of professional behaviour

Can't blame them, they wouldn't have ever envisaged grown men literally ceasing to exist at the thought of other staff having a different opinion.

From TT:

limit the use of Y, but also no steps to consider how expression of views would impact trans colleague
NB I don't agree, as CA note sets out in next steps we were alive to the heightened risk of difficult communications and were looking to create the ability for people to engage

in respectful professional way.
HH looking at 126, 127, at the time that decision was made to allow open expression, there had been no engagement with trans colleagues or those who represent trans colleagues
NB not to my knowledge, and can I clarify point on permission to use

Y, it had been available views to all employees, I was conferring permission to express GC views, people had the right to express a range of views with the guardrails of the code of conduct
HH talking about permission, when inappropriate content goes on Y, DEFRA HR had a respon

to step in.
NB DEFRA had a responsibility to step in if CoC was breached, not exclusively with HR, digital colleagues involved,
CoC - code of conduct
HH para 20 of WS, you say that it was your understanding that assessing suitability of SEEN for CS and necessity for any

HH you took no steps to intervene in this decision to allow GC views on Yammer

Why the hell should she?

NB is coming across as - to use the word du jour - bold in her responses, confident that they did the right thing by having a code of conduct and treating grown-ups as grown-ups.

HH looking at 126, 127, at the time that decision was made to allow open expression, there had been no engagement with trans colleagues or those who represent trans colleagues

You didn't ask trans people's permission before allowing staff to express their legally-protected reality-based opinions??!

Wtaf

From TT:

equality impact assessment would have been undertaken by Cabinet Office.
NB yes for cross dept networks
HH you took no steps to assure yourself that had happened
NB correct, my team in regular contact with Cabinet Office team, they would have known steps followed for recognition

of impact
HH if you knew that equality impact assessment had taken place you would have said so in your WS
NB I did not consider for my WS, I cannot say it does or does not exist
HH even if carried out, doesn't absolve DEFRA of considering impact on own org,
NB correct

HH because PSED is not something that can be delegated
NB correct
HH para 21, talk about formation of DEFRA staff networks, if based around EA protected belief, eq impact assessment not standardly done, there's not specific policy to support that is there
NB (no response heard)

HH that is an after the event justification that you did not carry out a formal assessment of the impact of the network
NB I disagree with that, despite cross gov network, we considered carefully the impact at DEFRA, you can see that in CA's briefing note. Its not correct to say

(You may have deduced that this morning I'm not sitting over the twitter feed carefully judging where's a good place to break - I'm doing other things, and just returning every 5 mins or so and posting whatever's accumulated. If this bothers anyone, in the nicest possible way, feel free to volunteer to do better...)

HH …no engagement with trans colleagues”.
Again. Why should they?
I dont recall that community engagement with wimin when they encroached on our spaces and rights.

Oo, I would love to see the EQIA for the Worst Kept Secret in the Civil Service, please

'You took no steps to unlawfully discriminate against views that have been deemed WORIADS'
is that even a legitimate question for a tribunal?!

From TT:

that we came into this without any consideration.
J not exactly what was put to - repeats HH q, no policy, what do you say in response to that assertion
NB that is not what I was intending to say, we took lots of steps, did we have a formal assessment, I don't know.
J WS says

'we would not undertake an assessment', is there a policy that says that
NB I'm not aware of any policy
J why did you say 'we would not undertake'
NB there may be a sort of practice that is based on discussions with CO team, I don't believe there is a formal policy that says we

will or won't.
HH isn't this the type of post match analysis that ECHR warns against,
AL I'm a bit lost as to the impact of these things
J I asked a specific question about the WS, HH you are going beyond that
HH this the type of post match analysis that ECHR warns against,

I'm talking about the post match justification to allow DEFRA SEEN as a network.
AL I'm in your hands, the question has been asked,
HH I suspect I'll get the same answer, so I'll move on. Due regard to PSED means conscious approach to further aims and objectives
NB I agree

HH must be done with integrity and rigour, is a continuing duty,
NB I agree
HH important when exercising public functions, says whether to allow DEFRA SEEN as a network, to keep records to show you actively considered impact
NB I agree

HH has been asking qq from a different reality where everything has to revolve around transfolx, and any deviation from that orbit around transfolx must sure be illegal.
I usually shrug and say 'hey, barristers gotta barrist' when they put strong non-GC arguments, but I'm finding HH very hard to take - infuriating and also somewhat 'beclowned' in the way she's presenting GI as fact...

Did they do any of this shit for any other network?

And whilst I'm posting:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551375-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-6

From TT:

HH you did none of those things did you
NB I don't agree with that. Against a backdrop that SEEN had already been rec'd as x departmental network, we gave thought to how to manage, we saw it is a challenging issue in DEFRA we did not move into with consideration and we knew we

would have to continue a careful focus on it.
HH agree challenging sensitive issue for DEFRA because it was going impact rights of trans colleagues and their right to come to work and feel safe
NB a sensitive issue, we had to find a very careful path to balance needs and wants

J we are talking about using the word issue, when consideration was being given to recognition of DEFRA SEEN, what was the issue
NB the issue was the sort of polarised and very different perspective between elements of the work force, I was aware of from a xgov perspective,

following CA briefing became aware of heightened tensions in DEFRA.
HH your answer there - describing the issue as polarised perspectives in the workplace, you were looking at this as competing beliefs, not beliefs vs lived experience of other

NB No we were looking at this from the perspective of the law, as an employer, where people could feel safe and where CoC and Nolan Principles (NP) were embodied in the work place. It wasn't 2 dimensional, we were thinking about if from a broad perspective

You beat me to it Boily but then you have SIX legs😁

The end of this thread is nigh - only 4 or so posts left.
Thank you for having the next one ready for us, er... mylady etc etc sorry I didn't c&p your full username!
Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6 | Mumsnet

TT on nitter:
Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) | nitter.poast.org

NB No we were looking at this from the perspective of the law, as an employer, where people could feel safe and where CoC and Nolan Principles (NP) were embodied in the work place.

My bold, and exactly what an employer should be doing.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551375-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-6