Live tweets from Day 7 of the Sara Morrison v Belfast Film Festival employment tribunal.
Session 1:
Welcome to Week 2 Day 7 Session 1 of Morrison v Belfast Film Festival at Killymeal House, Belfast. Michele Devlin is giving evidence, again.
Apologies – tech issues have stopped me tweeting but I have been taking notes. Michele Devlin is MD. Naomi Cunningham (NC) is asking questions. The claimant is Sara Morrison (SM)
NB: NOTHING I WRITE IS A VERBATIM QUOTE UNLESS IT IS IN “DIRECT QUOTES”. THIS IS MAINLY A SUMMARY AND CHARACTERISATION OF WHAT’S BEING SAID IN COURT.
NC morning
MD morning
NC asked you a few q’s yesterday and suggested you were deliberately trying to blur the day on which the iv began – I didn’t put it to you why you were doing that –
NC we say the decision was taken was either 4 or 5 July – and the reason why you want it to be later is because on 4/5 July there wasn’t many complaints
MD “I don’t accept that”
NC takes her to email from 11.15am from MC’s email and says it f
MD I could never dare speak for MC but he was unaware of the process around the iv
[MC is Mark Cousins – BFF director]
NC he’s talking in this email about the investigation with you Lisa Barros D’Sa and Marie-Therese McGivern – the three people in the email in 28 June meeting “which no one can remember much about”.
NC How did you get the email addresses for the 3 July email
MD I asked Sara Morrison (SM) for more
NC you asked her on 29 June for a list of LGBTQ contacts and yet in the email there are a lot of groups that have no connection to LGBTQ
MD it was a family day out and so there may have been community groups and unions – as we learned yesterday
NC so Falls Womens’ Centre
MD yes
NC Ardoyne is a youth group – FWC is women’s centre
MD yes
NC Ardoyne is a youth group – FWC is women’s centre
MD “The name would seem to give it away”
NC Alliance for Choice?
MD “they have members who are gay”
NC “well every organisation in the world…”
MD yes we could have had a really big list
NC so this LGBT email could go to basically any group ever
MD it was a family day
NC Alliance for Choice
MD it was bridge-building
NC it was a group criticised by SM – it was a deliberate provocation
MD no
NC The Women’s Institute? They might be a little surprised to be in an LGBT group
MD I think we agreed this was a family day out, there are groups, allies
NC Sinn Fein
MD yes
NC So basically any political party. There’s No DUP here
MD I haven’t seen this email since it was sent
NC this email was stuffed with as many groups as possible to “elicit” complaints – info@wrda – another group SM complained about
MD so you put them in
[big interruption from SD – doesn’t see how this is relevant – this is not in the pleadings]
J what is the relevance
NC it was added on day one
SD you rejected it as addition to the list of issues
NC it was agreed it could be addressed
[lots of legal argument]
NC this is the key issue in the case as has emerged and we understood on day 1 it was agreed we could address it
[more argument – NC is allowed to press on]
NC you put this list together with a view to generating complaints
MD I don’t accept that and I would further add that list was compiled and agreed by SM
NC and if you tricked SM into an enterprise that would allow you to start an investigation
MD I don’t accept the premise of your question
NC are BFF a considerate and generous employer
MD within the constraints that are possible – we are less so now as this has been draining all our resources.
NC and cash-strapped orgs can be generous with pay rises, but it can be generous with time off
MD not the way we work
NC you had always been generous with pay on sick leave
MD once during the pandemic SM was sick and so we as an org we suspended our normal procedures as it was a time of national crisis and many people are off sick
NC so normal procedure was that people off sick got SSP and Moyra Lock would be familiar with it
MD she was new – you’d have to ask her
NC when SM went sick she was put straight on SSP as you knew you were moving her out of the org
MD it wasn’t clear how sick she was
NC she went on sick on 26 July – you did not do anything re getting Occupational Health involved in Oct 2023
MD not my area – more Moyra
NC do you agree the prod to Lisa in October prompted a referral to OH in Nov
MD don’t know
NC and you might push someone into OH for a number of reasons – find out if they will ever work, find out when they can come back to work
MD yes
NC there was no interest in getting her to OH as you had no interest in getting her back
MD no
NC why did it take her prompting you to get to OH
MD not sure that was the case as we were trying to contact her and there was a “block of time” when she wouldn’t respond
NC SM did not work on the main BFF in 2023 and SM was therefore removed
MD yes
NC pretty hurtful if, say you did that to ML
MD Moyra hates being on the page anyway – SM was on the web page related to her job
NC which you took down.
MD “we getting tortured by all sorts of headcases… stopped by people in the street and harassed online… so I protected my staff”
NC when did the staff page come down
[MD isn’t sure. SD thinks it might be late September.]
[[we have moved on to the failure of MD to send SM her email password – SM wanted access to her work emails and sent her her password to the email account she was locked out of. MD insists it was a genuine mistake]]
NC you ensured the email inviting SM to an investigation interview was sent to SM’s gmail
MD yes
NC and you told Bethany to use SM’s gmail because you knew it couldn’t go to her work address
MD she was having a laptop fixed
NC that’s “misdirection” isn’t it – you knew she could
… not get her work emails but you needed her to read it
NC so you’re asking the tribunal to believe you believed she could access her work email because you thought you had sent her the password and then told a colleague to send the investigation invitation to her gmail
MD I didn’t know she had definitely fixed the email so I thought it was best to send it to gmail
NC did this prompt you to look to see if you had definitely sent SM’s work email password to the right email address
MD no I didn’t know I’d made the mistake.
[we got to a msg 28 July]
NC it’s from SM “The log in is in my emails – I
still can’t get logged in to it, I
can’t remember my
password just x”
MD is this a message between me and SM?
NC I believe so – it’s a bad point if not
This is in response to a q “Good morning Sara, hope you
are doing better today… get
some vitamin D from this
lovely sunny day. Could you
send your log in info for the
shared Beanbag Calendar –
I’ve taken on this work whilst
you’re off and need access to
insert bookings. X”
[we are trying to work out if this came from MD. NC thinks she’s got it]
NC these are messages between you and SM – agree?
[think we are agreed]
MD points to message from her “Did you get the password update for your BFF email”
And SM’s response “Not yet. I spoke with my gp
this morning – he said I need
to take some time out and
offered anti-d’s and put me
on a list for cbt, but it’ll take a
while”
MD was her saying she was still unwell and hadn’t looked yet
[NC moves on]
NC you eventually gave SM her password via gmail on 26 Nov
MD it was October
NC where does it say that
MD its definitely somewhere
NC SD will take it to you then in re-ex
NC you sent her a password in July to the wrong email
MD I sent her the password
NC and in 26 Nov you don’t say I’m so sorry I sent you the wrong email in July – you make it sound like it’s her fault
MD and you say you sent it October
NC and her reply saying she has no record
of receiving the email in July or Oct – you don’t correct her do you
MD no – I was sending her her password
NC you don’t clear the issue up that you sent her the email to the wrong address
MD no I’m a busy person I was just giving her what she wanted
J did you reply to SM’s email to clarify
MD I think I did. I’d have to go and check the records
[we move on to a doc in the bundle which suggests the October email was bundled into a reply to Subject Access Request]
NC so when you say SM was sent an email it was
… an unsent email in SAR bundle
MD appears confused.
NC you’re just lying now aren’t you
MD I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT
NC takes MD to the SAR and the covering note which doesn’t say “you’ll find your password in there”
MD I don’t say there’s this this and this
NC no but you know…
… she’s been asking for her password, but you don’t tell her its there.
MD no
J are you saying on 23 Oct email that within that reply there was a password
MD there were hundreds of docs in the SAR”. A fair part of my working life for some time was taken up doing this.
… and the resources and time of our org. “Our work suffered greatly. Our organisation suffered greatly.”
J I think a lot of orgs would say the same. Not just yours
NC so you sent her the password buried in a bundle knowing she needed it and didn’t tell her it was there
… is that a fair summary
MD possibly – I thought Mr Chambers (SM’s solicitor) might see it and give it to her
NC you like blaming everyone else don’t you
MD I don’t accept that
NC to summarise you knew from 25 July the claimant didn’t have access and you did nothing to
… communicate it to her till 26 November
MD I did take action. I sent it mistakenly to the wrong address in July, I took action in October and again in November
NC and you firstly sent it to the wrong address and then you secondly hid it in a pile of papers
MD I sent to her and it was available to her and it was there for her to use it
NC and this was someone who was off sick with poor mental health
NC have you heard the expression gaslighting
MD vaguely
NC it’s about giving people misinformation to drive them mad
MD is this… sorry
J let NC ask the qs
NC you were gaslighting SM weren’t you
MD no
NC the way you were treating her was “cynically cruel”
MD I do not accept that.
[[bit of case management chat – SD is actually trying to get MD off the last session of her evidence]]
J looking at the timetable – according to this you’re going to be done by 1115 tomorrow
NC I think so yes
J the longer this goes on the more it eats into your written subs – can we finish MD by lunchtime today?
NC I expect to be comfortably finished by lunchtime to day
J we’ll rise for a break and come back at 1134
[SD arguing about the 3 July being agreed as a subject matter – there is disagreement about what was agreed]
[[we’re on a break]]
The 3 July email has become – as far as NC and her junior Dr Charlotte Elves – are concerned – central to the case. They tried on Day 1 to have it added to the list of issues, but SD resisted. The tribunal continued on the agreement that it could be addressed even if it…
… wasn’t to be added to the list of issues and this headed off an application. SD, the J and NC’s recollection of exactly HOW the issue could be addressed appears to be a bone of contention.
If you are not clear on the 3 July email’s important having just picked this up today, please have a look at my Week 1 Summary and scroll right the way down to “The Evil Plot” which sets out…
… the claimant’s case that the 3 July email was part of a plan to generate complaints about SM (at the main behest of board member Mark Cousins) so they could start an investigation into SM with a view to either getting rid of her…
… moving her sideways or otherwise disciplining her.
The Respondent thinks this theory is a load of “rubbish” and is resisting it.
Their argument is that they behaved perfectly properly throughout, did not discriminate and that SM has no claim for that nor constructive dismissal.
There has been a comment from a gentleman sitting in the same row as me surprised that the Director of a Film Festival was only vaguely aware of the term gaslighting, given the term derives from the Alfred Hitchcock movie “Gaslight” – something…
… I must admit I was wholly unaware of.
Except Alfred Hitchcock did not direct gaslight…
https://eu.seacoastonline.com/story/news/2019/09/29/hitchcock-s-gaslight-true-false/2661651007/
However the play Gas Light and subsequents films Gaslight is where the phrase did come from:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4xpypk2x33MfQxp1xrBWkFG/where-does-the-term-gaslighting-come-from
Apparently the evil man would turn down the gas lights to make his wife think something spooky was going on.
[we are back]
J I said whilst issues are agreed between the parties ultimately it was for the tribunal to decide
SD we don’t accept it’s pleaded as “less favourable treatment”
NC didn’t hear
J I said from my notes the issues don’t need to be slavishly stuck to
SD you referenced, Knox, so you did
J I did
NC I understood no amendment was nec to plead the point I wished to pursue – if we wish to put forward the contention that 3 July was an act of detriment then we should be able to do so. If we are now not we must put forward an amendment application
SD the only thing I agreed was not needed was an amendment to the issues, not the pleas and there is a distinction between the two
[more legal discussion – SD suggests it is dealt with in closing. J and NC agrees.]
[MD resumes]
NC takes MD to her Witness Statement (WS) where she says the BFF staff page was moved on 17 Sep – and SM’s WS which shows the staff webpage at BFF was taken down on or by 31 July 2023
MD agrees she was wrong
NC if that was taken down in planning…
Session 1 continues in the box below:
Session 2:
This is Day 7 Session 2 of evidence given at Morrison v Belfast Film Festival. There were two witnesses giving evidence this afternoon. Keara Paterson on the left was in the last thread (I’ll post it below) and Marie-Therese McGivern – co-chair of the BFF in the centre, follows
Here is Marie-Therese McGivern’s evidence – a reminder nothing is a direct quote unless it is in “direct quotes” though both women spoke reasonably slowly so there are more than usual. Right – here goes. As-live tweeting!
[BFF co-chair Marie-Therese McGivern (MTM) is being sworn in and confirms her WS is correct]
[NC takes her to an email she wrote to her co chair LBD on 4 May 2023]
“I had planned to see Michelle before I got in touch with you again and i succeeded
yesterday afternoon. We had a really good chat and I feel in the loop now. We thought
through a lot of issues and made a number of plans. I want to share those with you and
then perhaps we can get a chat next week?”
and 5 May email to MD “I am happy to catch up with you when I return next week. Consultation with the Equality Commission is a good idea. Useful to also check our own docs in relation to where we might
stand in terms of objectives etc. would there be anything in our contract of employment around employees speaking etc at outside events?”
NC takes her to the contract: “Secondary Employment
You shall not without the express permission of management engage in any paid or unpaid activity which may directly conflict with the business interests of the employer or its members or which may interfere with your normal work. Employees are requested to notify the. employer of any secondary employment they
undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Working Time Regulations in relation to average working hours and daily rest.”
NC This is about secondary jobs or employment
MTM yes
NC it’s not about putting on a hi viz and helping out an event for a couple of hours
MTM I think I’m inclined to agree with you
NC you don’t need to worry about that at all
NC you say to LBD on 19 May: “Overall I think that we need to do a couple of things – firstly we need to review our contracts of employment just to check that they are in keeping with our value
framework and also we need to review and update our employment policies – the world
of HR moves quickly especially on certain issues”
NC so at that point it was just reviewing contracts
MTM yes
NC so no plans about doing anything else – anything more urgent or specific about C’s appearance at LWS
MTM at that stage I would have been concerned that whatever the impact of it had potentially not settled
yet, which was why I felt we need to talk to the EC and MD had I think had spoken to the legal team – we were in an information gathering situation
NC and in your last par you’re a little bit apologetic about how bureaucratic it sounds
MTM yes – my life in the public sector is quite bureaucratic and that we should seek expert advice and assistance
NC you’re apologetic because there’s a real desire forming in the BFF that something should be done
and the advice you were gettings was not much you can do about that “look to your policies”
MTM positive?
NC moving SM towards dismissal
MTM I don’t think we ever did – there may have been some convo as lets doing an iv, but my response was that we need to look at the paperwork. I was not apologising to LBD, I was just being a bit aware that it might not be the way LBD did things in her industry
[NC asks her to read MC’s emails and her response “On Friday night, in a bar, our staff member Sara Morrison raised the subject
to me of her speech at the trans rally. She said that she knew that Michele
had talked to me…
Session 2 continues in the box below: