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'd be careful going down the PSED route because id put good money on A Genders PSED assessment being absent or awful.

From TT:

HH You didn't consider more broadly failure to do impact assessment
J He's answered that
HH Relevant to C's grounds of appeal. In C's letter C has taken extracts from SM decision and given you grounds. C highlights extract - limiting one group eg SEEN would be discriminatory-

HH C talks about no balancing exercise having been done.
DH She does
HH C in support of propositions points to survey re impact of these events on t colleagues. You didn't address survey outcome
DH Not directly, no

HH p 1441 - first grounds of appeal - delay. 19/6/23 submitted, terms of ref no agreed till 19/9. Outcome received 3/4 - delay of ten months.
DH Agree
HH Back to you and following policy. [reads] Employer should write to person submitting within 5 working days
DH Don't dispute

The process was tardy in application, though.....not sure why as yet.

Can't read this without an inner insistence that it is in the voice of Sir Humphrey.

From TT:

HH So should have been replied to by end June 23. [reads] Assessor should write with 5 working days within meeting c upholding or not
DH Sounds about right if that's what it says in policy
HH C writes, delay of 10 months caused distress and outcome letter didn't ref this

protracted process
J Does your outcome letter deal with delay
DH Yes
HH But you didn't speak to SM re this
DH I had a conversation with SM as to why it had taken so long
HH No notes of this conversation in bundle
DH no
HH Didn't speak with Karl Hardman why his took months

DH No
HH [to doc] You say it took time to find suitable person Defra has a lot of employees. A wealth of people available- shouldn't take 3 months to find someone.
DH I have just appointed someone to do an i/x for me and luck it's not summer hols/recess. I can understand

it can take three months to find suitable senior person.
[missed]
J Why didn't you i/x
DH I was looking at overall process. This was one part.
J Did you i/x why it took 10 mnths

DH Number of things needed to be done. Find appropriate decision manager. An attempt - C was offered external i/xer which C turned down. And to do i/x together which was turned down. Finding someone took time. Detailed i/x. Included Christmas period.

HH So should have been replied to by end June 23. [reads] Assessor should write with 5 working days within meeting c upholding or not
DH Sounds about right if that's what it says in policy

It looks like it took 10 months rather than the 5 working days - that's not acceptable for anybody in any case, and while not affecting 'rigorousness', certainly indicates some lack of efficiency.

DH Sounds about right if that's what it says in policy
doesn't sound about right for a reply - I'm not getting the same vibes from DH that everybody else seems to be - I'm not saying he's not on the RSOH, but his 'I don't recalls' are as annoying as previous witnesses'.
I realise I'm in a minority of 1 here

It turns out the complainant turned down two offers of an earlier investigation; one by an external investigator, and one done with himself.

An attempt - C was offered external i/xer which C turned down. And to do i/x together which was turned down

🤔🙄

so ST causes delay, then ST complains about delay?

DH I agree J none of this ideal but I don't think process was flawed or led to unreasonable decision in the end.

Minority of 2 maybe! I'm not sure I'm understanding though - if the process that took 10 months was supposed to take 5 days, it surely can't have been intended to involve appointing a senior person to review the decision thoroughly. It wouldn't be reasonable to promise to do that in 5 days. Are we sure there wasn't just supposed to be a holding reply in 5 days that got missed? Maybe we'll get his WS and it will help.

HH C said I want my G dealt with on individual basis. Then another three months
DH Agree far from ideal

I hear 'far from ideal' in a Sir Humphrey voice

From TT:

DH I agree J none of this ideal but I don't think process was flawed or led to unreasonable decision in the end.
HH Let's break this down. Number of points. C wasn't offered collective i/x. Was told. [p 1164]
HH Email to C in Oct. C has met with SM, terms of ref agreed.

HH C told departmental decision made to make all complaints in this area as collective.
DH [Agrees not accepted]
HH C said I want my G dealt with on individual basis. Then another three months
DH Agree far from ideal. Don't believe led to unfair or unreasonable decision.

HH You chose to blame C for delay, not the org. p1452.
HH Reads from DH - DH wrote I consider some delays as result of C not agreeing collective i/x
DH Not blaming anyone. Delays throughout protracted process.
HH C told you reason she hadn't accepted collective i/x

I think DH is probably on the side of DH.

"I don't remember" is a lot more credible when a witness readily concedes a point that goes against them that they do remember.

This theme appears time and time again in tribunal decisions. The panel know full well what the difference is.

HH is flogging a dead horse here. I predict the judge will tell her to wrap up her questions any time soon.

And if you aren't emotionally involved in something, it just happens to have been a very small part of your working week a few years ago, you really would struggle to remember the ins and outs of things

From TT:
HH [ reads from DH re C and original complaint]
Crucial to consider impact of delay on person impacted?

I think that's a fair point, regardless of who the C is.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander who identifies as a goose😄

ST was not forced to take sick leave.

From TT:

HH was cos directive of that company had expressed views against her GI view
DH Not sure was aware then but am today.
HH [ reads from DH re C and original complaint] Crucial to consider impact of delay on person impacted?
DH I saw my role...
HH Repeats her q
[J/HH/DH re

interrupting]
DH Piece c delays unfair/unreasonable. Second if led to C suffering more discrimination. My role - March-June - didn't see more discrimination occurring during that ;period as result of delays although process unfortunately long.
HH Impact on C. You were
aware C forced to go on sick leave for 6 months

DH Aware was on sick leave
HH You didn't take into account impact of org conduct on C
DH and that that led to C going on sick leave in Aug?
HH Yes
DH That wasn't something I considered, no.

My note: lol!

Because no judge has ever seen through that ploy.... 😁

From TT
AL C went on sick leave end July
J [to H] Trying to understand point re sick leave. Don't think the dates fit.

Awks, HH

From TT:

J Are you saying C on sick leave cos of delay in dealing with appeal?
HH Delay in relation to whole process from start to finish,
AL C went on sick leave end July
J [to H] Trying to understand point re sick leave. Don't think the dates fit.
HH [to DH] You were aware when

dealing with appeal that C had brought ET proceedings.
DH No, don't believe I was.
HH p1441 c and d. Grounds of appeal. C saying SM decision that no discrimination had to be wrong cos first appeal acknowledged discrimination. You had sight of Karl Hardman's i/x report.

HH Para discussing posts made in May and June - KH says i/x established that posts not acceptable in workplace. C in appeal asks you to recognise there had been evidence of discrimination. [reads - I have been discriminated against and harassed]
DH This gets to heart of qs SM

We were queued up once at the exit of the Mersey tunnel - waiting to pay the toll at the booth.......when a woman, in a low cut, top ahead of us in the queue came running over to our car to ask if we had any change ( she should have organised that before going through the tunnel). My husband gave her our toll money.

He was he really was otherwise he would be erased and cease to exist.

It was life preserving so he could live to hound and harass his colleagues another day.

Or go shopping for frillies.....