Day 3 of Nurse Sandie Peggie’s Employment Tribunal claim against the Royal College of Nursing. Witness: Norman Provan
275 tweets
Hello and welcome to Dundee Employment Tribunal for Day 3 of Peggie v RCN. As things stand we only have one witness scheduled to give evidence – the RCN’s Norman Provan.
David Hay KC (DH) asking questions of Norman Provan (NP) – the RCN's Associate Director for Employment Relations for the last 18 years
DH before this you were a registered nurse?
NP yes I was and still am
DP what's your current role – I manage the EP team which do workplace representation. I am a member of the RCN's senior management team – I spend a great deal of my time with employers and Scottish gov
officials – doing wage negotiation etc
DH so you have line management (lm) responsibilities for the EP team and do collective bargaining agreements
NP yes
DH who is your lm
NP Colin Poole
DH is he exec director of RCN Scotland
NP he is, yes
DH RCN is a union – how many members?
NP just short of 600,000
DH in Scotland?
NP 58 to 55,000
DH can nurses join other unions?
NP yes – Unison, UNite, GMB and Royal College of Midwives
DH is RCN the largest?
NP yes
DH with regard to RCN Scotland (RCNS) it is delineated into 4 patches and each patch has a senior officer (SO)
NP yes
DH and do they report to you?
NP yes
DH and a team of officers below them and then local reps below them
[assents]
DH the patch in this case is the area for which Gillian Tait (GT) has responsibility for and Stuart Fraser (SF). Is that Tayside, Fife etc?
NP yes
DH how does that work
NP GT leads this area
DH and SF is a local rep?
NP – yes they're not directly employed by us
DH want to learn more about collective bargaining with RCN – and changes to policy within Health Board workplaces – do you have input into that?
NP yes I do
DH does each health board come up with its own policies
NP no in Scotland all policies are decided nationally and
all health boards adopt them without deviation
DH is that the Once for Scotland approach
NP yes that's a colloquial term
DH whats the vehicle by which policy gets changed
NP three groups – ESPF Scot partnership forum – strategic matters
STACC – a bargaining group and
SWAG – Scottish Workforce and governance – engine room of workforce policies.
DH now there are Joint Committees set up with a "staff side" and a "management" side
NP it's tripartite – unions, management and scot gov
DH but unions get 50% of the seats and management/scotgov get the other 50% of the seats
NP yes
DH and that's SWAG
NP yes
DH how often do they meet
NP quarterly
DH thinking about overarching approach to policy dev in Scot health servies – have you in your time in SWAG been aware of any health board "going it alone" in policies?
NP yes initially policies were guidelines not policies – in the last few years they became policies
so there shouldn't be deviation, but some health boards do deviate and if they are contested they are escalated back up to SWAG to restate the policy and be clear about its interpretation if it's disputed
DH do you have a position on the staff side of SWAG –
NP yes I'm the co-chair of SWAG
DH are these quarterly meetings minuted
NP yes
DH who has access
NP published and distributed to unions, and various boards etc – so they are publicly avail.
DH we're going to look and consider a particular request concerning Ms Peggie (SP) concerning the types of support the RCN can provide to its members in workplace disputes – what general support do you provide
NP support through network of stewards and advisors – quite common
to deal with grievances, practice complaints, personal injuries and the whole gamut of issues that might come up between an employer and a member of staff.
DH if I am a member of staff and I've been told I'm going to be investigated – could i speak to a steward or rep in the
first instance?
NP absolutely
DH and there's also a direct facility in RCN Direct – what's that
NP a call centre which triages the issue and it can either be dealt with by RCND or passed on to local stewards or reps to open a case and deal with
DH regions in england?
NP nine in england and the nations have their own as health is devolved
DH what will happen if you get a referral from RCND –
NP member is told they will be called within 48 Hours – try to do it in 24 hours to disco situation with staff member
and then the rep decides whether or not to open a case
DH how is a decision made if a case is dealt with by an officer, a local rep or steward
NP depends on availability and complex or simple case
DH is any record kept by RCN of comms between a member and RCND and then regional office?
NP RCND fill in a template form – called an enquiry – the initial phone call records whether action has been taken and how it is dealt with – if a case is opened then it goes into a case
management system
DH you have several bundles in front of you – please turn to the largest. p319
DH this is a document that we've referred to iin evidence already in this case, but what is it?
NP initial info sent through from a call to RCND and a brief note into circs of what happened.
DH okay p320 "Further Notes" what's this
NP note made by SF immediately following a
a call with SF
DH can any senior officer see that once logged
NP yes
DH p324 and p325 – screengrabs – what is this
NP electronic case management system which records all of the information
DH take it that using this all contact would be noted here
NP yes it's expected everything is logged here
DH what is the standard practice for the frequency with which an officer would be in contact with a member
NP varies. Standard is once per month, but it can be more
sometimes it can be several months depending on where we are in the process. But standard is once per month with exception of legal cases where it could be every three months as they can be very slow
DH so within the process the contact frequency can "wax and wane" – when does it get more frequent
NP if a member is suspended you'd want that to move quickly, whereas if a grievance has been taken out that can move quite slowly if there's an investigation…
DH you mentioned workplace personal injury – that would involve legal assistance – what about provision of legal assistance for disc procedure investigations
NP that will likewise often involve legal support. Not immediately. We need to determine if it is nec. It might be
required if a process isn't followed correctly, or if it isn't fair, or if the employer's actions don't match the outcome or rarely a constructive dismissal situation
if the relationship with the employer has broken down beyond repaid
DH as a member if I were in a workplace investigation (WI) and I wished to obtain legal assistance – how would I get that from the RCN
NP disco between the member and officer
to assess a situation. Officer would likely raise it if the employer (E) was being inherently unfair etc
DH so the process can be officer led – can it be member (M) led?
NP members do ask for legal support sometimes – in the sense that we have a threshold by which we can support and not support cases. The assessment has to sit above a factor of 50%
so we'll support cases where the legal advice is a more than 50% chance of succeeding.
DH who does that assessment?
NP our external legal advisors undertake that assessment
DH so if M says they want their case looked at by a lawyer – how does it get to the lawyer
NP Officer fills in template and it goes to me – then I have a call with the O to get more info – then it goes to our lawyers Andersen Strathern [who are repping RCN in this case] who will then assess after having a call with the member and looking at the details
DH who are AS?
NP they do all external RCN union work in scotland. It goes to tender, but they've held the contract for a long time. We do use other providers when there is an AS conflict of interest. AS source those legal providers for us.
DH so in a sit where an M has requested and is receiving legal assistance – to what extent do they have a say in who is providing legal service
NP they don't – our contract with AS is exclusive
DH it may be obvious form what you've just said – but what scope could some legal advice come from RCN and the M securing advice from another provider
NP not funded by the RCN members can secure their own legal support, but we make clear to members that legal support to them from
us will only be done through the contract we have.
DH the 50% threshold – if the view is less than 50% will the legal assistance stop being provided.
NP that's correct
DH are there any other circs in which a member requesting legal assistance might be refused that?
NP yes
DH could you give examples
NP if member is unreasonable in their behaviour towards us, if M is clearly being dishonest, if issue is incompatible with an RCN policy perspective – we would then refuse to provide support or would risk the reputation of RCN as an org
DH on the latter point have you ever refused – examples?
NP during covid we had M who was a covid-denier and was not willing to be compliant with infection control procedures – he sent to us what he regarded as evident and go to ET that his beliefs were not being followed
I decided it was fundamentally incompatible with what we were doing at the time
DH your decision
NP yes
DH what about a member choosing to mix legal advice between RCN and an independently sourced legal advisor
DH what if a member takes external legal advice and then comes to the RCN for help
NP diff area – I have some latitude – it's whether M knows we have rules about not providing legal advice if they already having taken advice elsewhere
so if they went to CA and got advice and then came to us I would normally support them, but if they had been made aware of the rule and still took advice elsewhere and came to us I wouldn't let them use it
DH how would they know
NP told by RCND, told in their membership contract letter and told electronically
DH p322 – you mentioned a contract letter – this is a 2 page letter – do you recognise this type of letter
NP this is standard contract letter sent to all members
following the opening of a case
DH did you have any involvement with SP case in Jan 2024
NP no I don't do ind casework
DH can you help me with the email on p321. This is from Donna McComb who is a PA – this email bears to attach called a case opening letter which
we've just looked at. Look at the destination details on this email. It's 8 Jan from Donna McComb but to the case reference number – that doesn't look like an email address. Why might we see a case reference number in the To box?
NP can't help you there
DH might be a better q
for SF
NP yes
DH p114 – this doc extends to p121 – recognise this
NP standard On The Case RCN leaflet
DH can we turn to p117 of this leaflet "Your Rights" – there is a statement given in respect of expectations as why advice or representation is not given. Yes
NP yes
DH over the page "Our Rights"
NP yes
DH and "Other Advisors" and this is about if a member chooses to take independent legal advice
NP yes
DH and on p119 there's a heading of "Conflicts" and on p120 a section on what a member can expect in terms of legal representation
NP yes
DH and it tells the M to look at the RCN website and also a client care letter – what's that?
NP the contract letter – we use those terms interchangeably
DH now go to p781 – 785 – this is?
NP a screenshot of the RCN website
DH and at p785 a page grab which goes over to p787 – this is content on RCN website as to ETs and the courts and aspects of ET claims
NP yes
DH so ref on RCN leaflet to RCN website – is that what we're looking at here
NP yes
DH who can access RCN website.
NP publicly avail
DH is this section members only
NP I believe this section is publicly avail
DH can members access paywalled sections with their membership details
NP yes
DH you say you're not involved in ind casework – did you come to be aware of SP's case in NHS Fife?
NP yes
DH how?
NP following receipt of an email from Jo Galbraith-Marten who asked me to speak to Margaret Gribbon who had commenced her case
DH this email is on p328 of the bundle
DH and MG was looking to speak to someone about SP's case – did she speak to you
NP yes we spoke in a couple of days
DH and from your disco with MG in mid Feb 2024 – what did you understand MG wanted to talk to you about
NP she advised me she had disco with SP about her case
and they were looking to run an ET on her case I said I couldn't discuss this in details as I didn't have SP's permish which I said I'd seek and MG also wanted the RCN to get involved on "a strategic level about the implications regarding that particular health board"
when it came to their policies and I agreed I would get SF to look at it.
DH can we turn to p400 – an email chain from p400 to p402 – and do we see there SF is emailing you on 3 Jan 2025 forwarding emails from MG to SF which were sent on 23/24 Dec 2024 – yes?
NP yes
DH we know the emails from MG are concerning a request made by MG on SP's behalf for legal assistance in respect of a developing aspect of SP's disc process. These emails were sent to you by SF on 3 Jan. First time you had come to hear of it?
NP I don't recall having had a call with SF prior to receiving that email.
DH did you speak to SF once you had received this email chain
NP yes
DH how quickly after you got the email on 3 Jan did you have that convo
NP can't recall – normally it would be quite quickly
DH you're based in Edinburgh office – SP is in patch in Tayside and Fife area
NP SF's base is Edin office, but most officers work from home so SF would be in Edin about once a month.
DH what did you discuss with SF about this email
NP SF would have asked if the RCN would provide
any legal support and I told him that "within our rules… I didn't think that would be possible"
DH whose decision is that to make?
NP mine
DH did you give an prelim view to SF during that call?
NP I would normally have so yes I would have
DH you set out your reasoning in a decision on 17 Jan – when was it you reached a concluded view that SP could not get the assistance she was looking for
NP can't remember – day or next day after SF sent me case management details
DH what was your conc as to whether the request for legal assistance could be provided by the RCN or not
NP decided we "could not" provide in this case 1 – the ask for a 2nd employment tribunal was "inextricably linked" and 2nd SP had already taken advice from external sols and legal counsel
DH if we turn to p407 – this is an email from you to SF sent on 17 Jan just before 10am and do you set out your conclusion and your reasoning
NP yes
DH look over it again – are you content that what is contained in this email is an accurate description of your reasoning
NP yes
DH there's an elapse of time between MG's email on 3 Jan to your email to SF of 17 Jan – why the passage of time
NP my availability partly and aware of the fact we had scheduled training with an external legal provider which SF and I would both be present at
and so I suggested SF and I have a chat on that day.
DH how close to 17 Jan was the event
NP don't recall – it would only have been a few days before.
DH you mentioned forming an initial view on 3 Jan – rationale on 17 Jan – over that 2 week period were you continuing to mull over the proposition or had you got a view.
NP I was not mulling over the dec I had made. I was content. What I did mull over was the extra
info I could give her about co-joining her secondary claim with the first, but that would be giving her advice when we said we wouldn't. However morally it felt like the right thing to do.
DH were you aware about at the time you reached the decision about this request for legal assistance – were you aware of SP's GC or sex realist beliefs?
NP yes
DH to what extent, if at all was your understanding of SP's beliefs influence or have a bearing on her request for legal assistance
NP "they had no bearing on my decision. I applied the rules of the org. SP's beliefs are protect. Had it not been the application of our rules there would have been no reason the RCN would not have supported her form the outset."
DH let's go back to p118 – it says RCN "may" decide not to represent you. Why did you reach the decision not withstanding the "may"
NP I did it because it is what I do in every single case where people have taken legal advice by their own choice. I only apply "may" if people
didn't know about our rule. But not if they ought to have known or did know.
DH in practice how are inds told they're not getting legal advice (LA) from the RC
NP normally i tell the O by email and ask them to tell the M – normally I tell them O orally and the they tell the M and send an email. We might write it up if M request more info
DH you were written to by SP seeking reasons as to why LA was turned down – see p412 –
DH after this is sent on 14 Feb 2025 – if you go to p414 – we see the email from SF to SP saying NP has asked us to have a teams chat all together – the request for a teams call was decline by SP – what was your purpose in suggesting such a convo
NP in my experience a convo with the M can be helpful we can set out clearly the reasons for making a decision – also we were in a slightly unusual sit where a lot of corr was coming from her lawyer MG and its one of the reasons why we don't have multiple parties – it's often
helpful to have a convo.
DH SP says she wants reasons before a meeting so you sent the email on p416 – 24 Feb 2025 and we see you are setting out there reasons within this email. To what extent if at all had you added to or changed your rationale from 17 Jan
NP don't think I
changed my rationale at all.
DH one element of this case is the absence of provision of LA to SP in the first claim – that is earlier than what we are looking at now. Did you ask SF if SP had made a req for ass in the first claim
NP no I didn't. I didn't have any knowledge
of any req at that time.
DH what about at any later point
NP no – not until a year later
DH so early 2025
NP yes with the second request
DH so what did you discuss with SF
NP what we've just discussed about running a second ET
DH we can see there were discos and comms re SP's case at this point. Did you continue to have any convos around SF's support for SP re workplace representation
NP no. supervision of SF would have been by GT locally.
DH was there any suggestion coming from SF saying he was
having any probs helping SP because of her GC views?
NP no.
[court rises for a short break. DH indicates he will only need another 20 minutes of his scheduled three hours. That doesn't necessarily mean an early bath as it will allow SP's barrister Naomi Cunningham (NC) to take up the slack if she needs/wants to]
[NP, afaik, is the only witness scheduled and therefore present today]
[it was all a bit of a rush this morning so I didn't get the cast list together nor the warning etc so…
Everything I tweet is a summary or characterisation of what is happening – NOTHING is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes"]
Speakers:
J – Employment Judge Melanie Sangster
NP – Norman Provan, RCN
DH – David Hay, RCN barrister
SP – Sandie Peggie – claimant
NC – Naomi Cunningham, SP's barrister
A few others:
MG – Margaret Gribbon – SP's solicitor
sol – soliticor
SF – Stuart Fraser – RCN Officer
GT – Gillian Tait – SF's lm
O – RCN Officer
M – RCN Member
LA – legal advice
lm – line manager
ET – employment tribunal
If you want to read the report from yesterday – it's here:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-day-2-trans-organisational-madness/
If you want to read the report from Day 1 it's here:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-title-here/
And if you want to read an interview with SP ahead of the trial, it's here:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-i-want-this-to-be-a-wake-up-call/
I am covering the duration of this tribunal. I post a court report after the each day’s hearing, which subscribers get first, then I write a more relaxed email newsletter to subscribers only after that. Please consider a small donation to sign up here:
genderblog.net/donate/
Some pics of the arrivals today taken by the great @iain_masterton. First up – Norman Provan…!
David Hay KC!
Always helps to put a face to a name, doesn't it…?
And Naomi Cunningham (l) with Sandie Peggie. NC will be cross-examining NP after DH is done.
Here are a couple of supporter snaps including an @iain_masterton selfie… so that's Anne on the left and Jo and Helen with Iain on the right.
[court is back in session]
DH we had just been looking at your email of 24 Feb 2025 at p416 and it occurred to me there's a couple more qs I should ask. We see in this email of 24 Feb in the fourth par you make ref to the doc On The Case and you say OTC attached and you quote
from it. Did you attach it?
NP I'm sorry I don't recall it's likely I would have asked Donna McComb to send that so I don't know
DH SP responds to you on 3 March and she's responding to certain points you made in your email of 24 Feb
DH at the stage of receiving SP's email on 3 March did you have any awareness as to whether SP had received the On The Case leaflet.
NP my understanding was it sent immediately after her call with SF
DH that's the email at p321
DH this tribunal has heard evidence from Lisa Mackenzie (LM) and we know she was an RCN employee between 2017 and 2019 and she was based in the same office as you – she said you might encounter each other from time to time – what sort of working relationship did you have with LM
NP good. she was not my direct report "she was a good member of staff. I had no difficulties with her"
DH describe to me please what parts of the RCN Edin HQ have access to.
NP has you enter the RCN HQ we have a suite of meeting rooms, a reception desk and a library, then we have an electronically locked door, so staff outwith reception and library are all based beyond that
locked door which they can't get through unless access is given to them by a member of staff.
DH we know from LM there was an investigation (iv) into her under disc procedures – how were you involved in it?
NP LM had an disc iv and whilst she was on leave a member of her fam
became v unwell and it looked like LM was going to be away. LM's own lm was going to be on leave after so I was asked by exec dir Teresa Fife to take on her lm's role
DH by the time you did this had the iv been undertaken
NP yes
DH did you have any role in the iv
NP no
DH what about the outcome consequence
NP I did that
DH based on what
NP the investigators report and findings
DH and you subbed for the iv officer.
NP no – the iv officer was from London – I subbed in for LM's lm
DH what if you hadn't done that
NP it would have stretched on
DH what choice did LM have in this – could she have waited
NP I emailed LM and asked her if she wanted me to
hold the meeting to get it done more quickly. I also contacted her rep to see if he was around to rep her if she wanted to go ahead.
DH turn to p726 [of the bundle]
DH is this the email that you've just been telling us about?
NP yes it is
DH what was the decision that you were in there to make
NP whether or not LM had breached her contract – the explicit term of her contract re her work outwith the RCN and if that was found that should
go forward to a disc hearing or not.
DH you decided not to proceed to disc action – there was a decision re contract breach
NP "I concluded that LM had breached her contract"
DH nature and severity
NP I concluded it was a "technical breach" she'd not done anything maliciously also her Dec of Int info was a bit "woolly" and I would have expected her lm to give her bit more guidance and info around that, but there was nothing malicious about her breach
DH and this is on p727 the letter you sent her setting it out. Let's go to last p731. the conclusions… here in the decision section of your letter you confirm no formal disc action will be taken in respect of the matter, but there will be a Letter of Concern sent
which sits on LM's file so
DH why send it
NP had concerns that LM had been quite passive in keeping her Dec of Int form up to date – I thought her lm might have been more proactive, but I wanted LM to understand that the processes needed to be properly adhered to.
DH why
NP "some of the written material produced by the group that LM was working with had been partic critc of the SPS and LM's portfolio was with the SPS" and it might be that she might come into contact with some of the people and staff that she had criticised and "I felt it was important that LMs role with the RCN was entirely differentiated from the other work in which she was involved"
DH were you award LM holds GM or sex realist views –
NP yes
DH when
NP not in advance of the disc process
DH to what extent did LM's view influence the decision that you made
NP none at all
DH you described your relationship with LM as warm – did it change in any way after this disc process
NP no we continued as before I am not aware of any change in the nature of our relationship
DH did you read her MBM article
NP only the day before I stepped into the role
DH it is an article which advances certain critiques from a GC or sex realist perspective – might it be said the content of the article and the fact it contained those beliefs played on your mind or affected your decision –
NP "it didn't at all – I absolutely accepted LM's right to hold the opinion that she held. She was very passionate about it… the content was irrelevant to me. it was whether or not she had breached her contract."
DH you say it was a concern that the article had criticised the SPS and LM had had prisons in her portfolio – looking at her contract p675 – which of the subclauses in her contract were engaged by this concern
NP I would say 11.3 – I think 11.2 she had permission from her lm
[this is the article that LM was investigated by the RCN over: murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2019/07/29/losing-sight-of-womens-rights-article-for-scottish-affairs/]
DH takes him to the Ellie Mulreany section of the bundle – what connection does the RCN have with EM?
"she attended congress on one year I was there… so she was an active student member who I was aware of due to her attending congress"
DH as an activist would EM be a member of the RCN
NP yes
DH would she be a member of staff
NP no
DH we can see some minuted notes of EM contributions to the RCN AGM on p20
NP I wasn't present
DH do you know if EM is still a member of the RCN?
NP I don't know
DH takes NP to bigger supplementary bundle – p1116 now the tribunal saw this email in evidence yesterday – it was sent by an ind to the Free Speech Union and within it there are some copied extracts of emails passing between an RCN member and I think a rep – have you seen these
NP only on receipt of the bundle
DH what do these emails show
NP "I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the FSU… or any active role that they play"
DH [takes him to a par] "at last year's RCN annual conference in Glasgow" – Scottish matter?
NP no – RCN hold confies everywhere – so not explicitly Scottish
DH okay in this email – do you have any recollection of an issue over access to LA during that period?
NP no
DH "finally Mr Provan, you have involvement with matters of policy at a collective level… at a higher level and I presume you may be aware that there's an issue in this case about a position that the RCN might be said to…"
"…have in respect of it having a view contrary to the views of inds who might otherwise be call GC or SR – can you tell me your understanding of any corporate position and how they might interact…
"… with people who hold diff beliefs?"
NP "I am aware this has been a contentious issue among members with views strong views on both sides. From a corporate organisational side I have never in my …"
"… role as a senior manager had any impression that the RCN prefers one side over the other. We provide support to people whose rights are protected under the EQA and I have never encountered anything in the organisation which suggests other than that."
[NP's evidence in chief finishes. we are having a lunch break before the cross-examination starts. I am off to find the bundle….]
[I had some good times with the bundle. Stupid thing. That's a Grok image btw]
[but about 95% accurate to the room, chair and bundle]
[court is back sitting. Norman Provan (NP) from the RCN is about be to cross-examined by Naomi Cunningham (NC) for Sandie Peggie (SP)]
NC I'm going to start where DH ended with the story of LM leaving the RCN – LM said in her evidence – she liked you and I think you liked her. "Did you regard her as a straightforward and honest person?"
NP yes
NC this is your outcome letter from the disc process – you made the decision and the consequences flowing from it on p732 LM corrected the chronology in your letter
NP I don't recall receiving this letter, when her lm came back I extracted myself from the process, but if you
give me a moment, I'll read it.
NC of course –
NP I accept that would be LM's version of it – I expect its related to the inv rather than the meeting i held
NC but the expectation it would be honest – look at what she put in the box – can you agree with me that her Dec of Interest form (DOI) was succinct but accurate
NP yes
NC LM told you about the 5 June 2019 meeting where her colleague LHB had presented an article co-written by LM at a meeting and protestors created a violent and intimidatory atmosphere and she gave a draft of that article to her lm
NP yes
NC "I want to turn to the man who calls himself Ellie Mulreany" – he was regularly pictured at RCN events
NP yes
NC and on p8 of the bundle we see a picture of him and he is being congratulated by an RCN account
NP yes
[we've got that weird thing where NP is calling EM her and NC is calling him he]
NC on p25 we see a "somewhat filtered" picture of EM and that's his handle?
NP yes
NC do you agree that that material is thoroughly unpleasant threatening material towards people who hold GC beliefs
NP yes
NC in partic the term "stomping boots" and the ["ever living fuck" tweet] – do you agree given the context about TERFs – that when he talks about annihilation of oppressed groups – "he's encouraging his followers to kick the ever loving fuck out of TERFs"
NP yes
NC so it's reasonable for LM to feel frightened
NP I can certainly accept that she may have been concerned about him appearing at the building
NC it's true she worked behind a locked to door, but its not unfanciful that EM could be invited into the staff only parts of the building
NP possibly, but I'm
speculating
NC it's a fact that many men who say the are women are vociferously determined to get access to women-only spaces EM is a man who says he's a woman – it's not
unfancifal that the staff only area might be another boundary he might look to violate.
NP i would be speculating
NC it would have been easy for Rachel Cackett – LM's lm (RC) to find out if he was a manager
NP yes
NC can you agree with me that it is diff to understand why she wouldn't have done that
NP yes
NC you confirmed to DH it was clause of 11.3 of LM's contract you were focused on when deeming a breach – which says that staff must not publish views contrary to the views of their employer – but they can't anticipate views that RCN has not adopted
NP it doesn't say that
NC do you accept that this only relates to things that the RCN has adopted publicly
NP yes
NC so go back to p730 [NP's outcome letter]. It's implicit in what you say there – that LM must have done something wrong in writing and proposing to publish
that article without getting permission first.
NP it's a specific term of her contract
NC so she's in breach
NP but you don't say in your letter what it is in the article which disagrees with the views of the RCN
NC what is it?
NP yes as I state in my evidence this morning my concerns were her criticisms of the SPS and she publicly represented the RCN in our ongoing
relationship in the SPS there might be a risk they consider any publication or work with the group out with the RCN might represent the RCN's views.
NC but 11.3 doesn't say that – the contract term is about views which conflict with those of the RCN – not that she can't criticise an organisation
NP SPS was an external partner well – a critical stakeholder – and I didn't want her views to be conflated with RCN
NP there was a risk of reputational damage
NC but that's not what that clause says – so she might be in breach of another term in her contract which may or may not exist which doesn't allow her to criticise
other organisations, but she can't be in breach of terms 11.3 – do you accept that.
NP I've given my evidence and my explanation about finding her in breach – it was a reputational concern
NC it's right that RCN had never adopted Gender Identity Ideology – it has never adopted
it formally.
NP correct
NC If you look at the article which caused all the fuss – there's an abstract of it at p687 – the article criticises the SPS policy on TG prisoners and the conflation of sex and gender in the census and the adoption of self-ID – none of these things
were issues on which RCN had taken a position.
NP correct
NC yet your letter suggests LM should have known that RCN does take a position on these things.
NP no I don't agree with that
NC the abstract to this article is GC
NP yes
NC and the tribunal can be clear that the RCN knows what GII is
NP yes
NC and that is whether someone is a man or a woman and should be treated as a man or a woman is down to their inner belief about their gender identity
NP yes
NC and that was the basis on which the self-ID law was progressing
NP yes
NC and GII takes the view that "trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary IDs are valid"
NP yes
NC and the GC side is that sex is defined by the body
NP yes
NC and do you agree that the most "urgent and fractious" part of this debate are around TW getting access to female spaces
NP that is one of them yes
NC so would it be fair and slightly cartoonish to boil the dispute between the two sides down to the proposition is that GC people say trans women are men and the GII's says TWAW
NP yes
NC isn't the assertion in your letters to LM that she should have known that her position would bring her into conflict with the RCN's position
NC do you think LM had any reason to reflect on her values
NP no
NC do you accept it happened
NP no idea
NC you said at the end of your evidence [she reads out the quote: "I am aware this has been a contentious issue among members with views strong views on both sides. From a corporate organisational side I have never in my role as a senior manager had any impression that the RCN prefers one side over the other. We provide support to people whose rights are protected under the EQA and I have never encountered anything in the organisation which suggests other than that."]
[takes him to p1262 – RCN doc on care for trans patients]
NC this doc is published by the RCN
NP yes
NC would you turn to internal p6 – under the heading "accommodation and environment" – "patient placement should be based on preference and gender presentation" – implication is that man dressed as a woman who says he's a woman
should be placed on a female ward?
NP [gestures] yes
NC that RCN doc is unmistakably aligned with trans ideology
NP it's not policy – it's guidance published pre the SC judgment which settled this debate – so it's a piece of advice prior to the SC judgment which settled the
issue.
NC but the SC judgment came about as part of this clash between GC and GII, so this advice was manifesting a commitment to GI belief
NP yes
NC and that was the position that RCN had taken up before SC judgment
NP yes this predates that
NC and would you turn on in the same document to internal p11 which deals with children: [she reads – i paraphrase] gender variant children and young people should be given the same care as trans adults – where needed they should be accommodated according to their expressed gender…
NC that is a policy of affirmation of expressed GI and should treat them as the oppo sex if they say they are
NP yes
NC and that is an expressing of GI belief
NP this is guidance of how to treat people with dignity and respect
NC guidance which reflects RCN's position at the time
NP yes
NC and RCN's view at the time
NP "i think it's fair to say yes to that"
NC takes him to the glossary where gender expression includes "girlboy" and "eunuch" – this is the "wilder shores" of GII, isn't it?
NP I think this is to help nurses understand some of the language being used in society
NC so is your evidence that the GI "eunuch" is a valid ID that should be used and respected by healthcare staff
NP not something I'm aware has ever been used, but this language was out there and being used and this is guidance to help staff
NC but if you read this together with the other stuff it was advice that RCN staff in order to be inclusive should respect a child's gender ID of eunuch
NP not sure that follows – a child isn't mentioned
NC but RCN is telling nurses to afford same respect to children's ID as adults and if a child says they're a eunuch they should affirm it
NP [accepts]
NC if that is the case, it's shocking isn't it?
NP I don't think that this was the case this was about helping nurses navigate the changing language being used in a very difficult area.
NC please go to p1043 – a news article on RCN website about its attendance at Northern Pride – and then over the page we see some of those who attended and we also see a progress pride flag with an RCN insert
NP yes
NC do you agree a progress pride flag is firmly
associated with GI
NP yes
NC "so this is the RCN associated with GI – celebrating it?"
NP yes
NC p1025 – we see the RCN logo embedded in the progress prider gla and there's an event advertised. That is a GI promoting event.
NP yes
NC would I be right in thingk that RCN has ever run a GC event
NP don't know
NC hazard a guess
NP I can't
J are you aware of any
NP we do have events celebrating suffragettes
NC would you accept there is a sharp and obvious distinction between the campaign of votes for women and that men and women are different
NP yes
NC but the GC movement has taken on the suffragette colours
NP I didn't know that
NC would you agree it is inconceivable that the RCN would hold an event celebrating GC views
NP no. would not agree.
NC if it ever has happened I am sure your colleagues can come to the tribubal
next week with evidence.
NP yes
NC pls go to p1051 in the bundle – RCN shop merchandise on the website – would you agree with me that mostly what you see is what we can call generic nursing "tat" – campaigning tat
and some historic tat, some quite nice historic tat, until we get to p1056 showing and RCN enamel badge showing detail from the progress pride enamel badge – I haven't seen anything on these pages in the RCN shop that's comparable to the pride enamel badge for GC nurses.
NP until you mentioned the adoption of the suffragette colours as GC colours I didn't know there was a known symbol. if the progressive badges was to adopt additional bars for GC bars I think as an org I would imagine the RCN would adopt that
NC you appear to be imagining a parallel universe whereby if someone put together the GC colours into the progress pride flag the RCN would adopt that. That would never happen
NP It might.
NC okay. are you saying that if someone designed an enamel badge with GC colours on the RCN shop would sell it.
NP not my decision, but I would think that we would
NC it's only this one particular belief that is ceebrated put into the RCN shop stuff. Just this one. Curious isn't it?
NP yes
NP nplain why this one belief is privileged to the exclusion of every other – no christian merch no GC merch, nothing elsen
NP no idea – can't say
NC can we go to p1257 – Meeting to disc recommendations from the investigation report. RC says: you asked a number of times about advice given to another member of the team – I am clear it is only appropriate to discuss your situation – now this was LM asking about Lorna Green's campaigning work on the decriminalisation of abortion in Republic of Ireland – if that's right – it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask – that was campaigning political work, relevant to women's rights – quite closely comparable to LM's work – it's a fair enough q to ask isn't it?
NP accept your point but we don't operate in Ireland
NC RC's point is essentially – "mind your own business"
NP RC would be advised not to discuss other member of staff's issues in a confidential meeting – it's just to discuss matters between her and LM
NC its poss RCN…
… did not seek to micromanage or control LG's work on abortion because RCN did not operate in Ireland or have an opinion
NP i don't accept micromanaging – but we don't operate in Ireland and don't have any stakeholders there
NC but it wouldn't have an opinion
as it was off its patch
NP yes
NC and you say you didn't have an opinion on GI so there shouldn't have been a problem with LM's work
NP if it was about GC beliefs – but it wasn't it was about her work criticising stakeholders we have relationships with
NC but that wasn't in the
contract
NP no but that was the concern
NC LM's work would not have been a problem had the RCN not tacitly adopted wholesale GII
NP I don't agree
NC and that's why both you and RC swerve the issue in your discussion and communication with LM
NC can we go to p764 – LM's DOI statement on her value – says she has been asked to set our her values and her understanding of them in relation to the RCN's values and says she adopts them fully
NC it's clear that RC thought that by asking LM to reflect on her values that RC thought LM's GC view were antithetical to equality
NP I don't know – I only saw this document in the bundle
NC it's obvious LM would be upset by this
NP I don't know how this was interpreted by LM or RC. I wasn't there.
NC let's go back to the article – it's a process of policy capture where policy making on sex and gender issues has been directed to the advantage of one particular
specific interest group without regard to other groups or the wider population – that's a pretty good description of what happened at RCN – isn't it?
NP no I don't agree
NC the RCN has been captured like other institutions tacitly – if the RCN were to put a
motion at conference along the lines of "a man who says he is a woman is a woman and must be treated as such for all purposes"
NP what I would say the RCN is not having that debate – it's our members
NC you've never had that debate
NP no
NC you've adopted it tacitly and the reason it's tacitly is because if it's tested it falls apart – it leads to rapists being accommodated in female prisons.
NP I don't agree it's been adopted
NC but it's the position of RC and whoever runs your merchandise department
NP disagree
NC if you think about the outcomes of GII – men in women's prisons, men being appointed head of rape crisis centres, men in female wards – it puts a high value on the rights of men who say
they are women and little or no on women – yes
NP yes
NC so GII privileges the rights of men a small number of men over the needs of women
NP that could be argued
NC it's therefore a misogynist creed
NP don't know if I would entirely agree that it is in the range or circs
of circs you described – from a rapist in a prison to a man who has lived his life as a woman – not sure it's misogynist all the way through
NC fundamental prob with the creed TWAW is that it doesn't distinguish between nice harmless men living under the radar as woman and "fetishists, perverts predators and chancers"
NP yes
NC odd that the RCN remains such a male-dominated organisation given the vast majority of members are women – can we go to p1122 – familiar with this doc?
NP yes
NC let me take you to exec summary on p1129 – make up of council is 60% male whereas membership is 90% female – council is seen by female staff and members as a misogynistic environment where loud male voices drown out those of women
[this is Bruce Karr KC's report into the state of the RCN – it has been published here: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.rcn.org.uk/-/media/Royal-College-Of-Nursing/Documents/About-Us/Independent-Review-of-the-Culture-of-the-Royal-College-of-Nursing.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjils7E74mXAxXeU0EAHYeiAQ8QFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3VVxVdT0xMJV71uhweBkOz]
It says: "The cultural consequences of this are that Council itself is seen by many – whether they
be staff, female Council members or ordinary members – as a misogynistic environment
in which loud and abrasive male voices dominate the environment to the detriment of
women. It’s current composition and way of doing business is not fit for purpose."
NC this is consistent with an organisation which privileges the rights of men above women
NP no I don't agree
[we're taking a break]
[the Carr report was written in 2022 and it is strong. This from the Exec Summary:
"The RCN has been described as being “in a state of crisis as it goes blindly from one catastrophe to another without any respite in sight”. On the basis…
… of what I have seen, it is difficult to argue with that assessment."]
["It is an organisation which at its top, is riddled with division, dysfunction and distrust. Whilst the distrust is most prominent relation to the RCN’s Council and its Executive, it extends…
["… to relationships within Council and within the membership as well as between its professional and trade union arms."]
["There is a culture of suspicion within Council in which it does not believe that the Executive is acting in the best interests of the members…"]
Blimey.
["The culture of suspicion is further driven by fear of the next Emergency General Meeting (EGM). Both staff and Council members alike operate in an atmosphere in
which they expect that their decisions will lead to a revolt from active groups within the membership who, due to the threshold requirement of 1,000 votes, are able to trigger an EGM as has been done twice in the last four years. This in turn causes organisational paralysis."]
["The make-up of Council does not reflect the membership of the College – despite recent improvements in the gender balance, it is still nearly 60% male whereas the membership is almost 90% female. As far as ethnicity is concerned, it is no better and the current Council is not reflective of the fact that around 45% of RCN members are from the BAME community. Many of those who serve on Council are seen as being “the same old faces” who have operated in the upper echelons of the College for many years. This, together with the lack of women or ethnic minority members, permits of a culture in which the College is seen to be run by middle-aged, white men. The substantial number of resignations from Council in recent years has only served to reinforce this perception. If RCN members do not feel that the College looks like they do – whether it be by reference to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability – they will at best not engage with and be active in it and at worst, will take their membership elsewhere."]
[Wow – "There is a real issue that needs to be addressed in relation to the culture of Congress. The evidence that I have seen suggests that there is a level of expectation amongst a significant number of (male) attendees that opportunities for sexual activity will present themselves at Congress. As a consequence, the boundaries between consensual and potentially exploitative sexual activity are at risk of becoming blurred if they have not already done so. That Congress is seen as a place at which there is, for at least some attendees, an expectation of, or an opportunity for, sex to take place,
means that there is also the opportunity for alcohol and power-related exploitation of the vulnerable."]
[okay we're back]
NC going to talk more about SP's first claim – if we look at p333 pls. Your PA Laura Petri asked MG for some detail of the case and the same afternoon p332 – a short clear outline from MG at the bottom of the page – and then if we go on to p334…
we see MG's attendance note – wrongly dated 13 Feb, but it's a summary of your convo on 12 Feb
NP yes with the addition that I said I could not disco SP's case without her permish to do so.
NC and you said you couldn't provide LA because she had already instructed others…
… but you did say that you would rep her in her disc.
NP yes
NC MG said she said the union should join in strategic collective approach to the issue of men in women's spaces
NP don't remember this exactly but accept she wrote this
NC you accept she's appealing to the union
to get involved in collective action.
NC and when she wrote to SF saying that the issue SP was dealing with affect all RCN's female members
NP yes
NC and this decision to allow men into women's spaces was taken without any impact assessment or engagement with women
NP yes
NC and isn't that precisely the sort of thing that any union worth its salt should be enraged by – the failure to consult
NP [says something about a single policy for all scotland]
NC you're not saying this was a policy introduced by NHS scotland
NP no
NC so what had happened was that this partic NHS board had adopted a practice or a policy
NC and you should have found out what it was
NP yes
NC and the union didn't do anything
NP no I disagree – SF would have progressed that through the investigation into SP
NC nothing collective was done – the union did not kick up a fuss by telling a man he could use the
female CR so no female member of staff could trust the sight on the door – and that's because the RCN had adopted the view that TWAW
NP no I don't agree with that.
[sign on the door, sorry]
NC moving on to the second claim – if we turn to p400 pls. if we look at MG's email – drew to SF's attn poss second claim against NHS Fife and grounds for claim. SF forwarded this to you and we see on p407 where you decline this
NC you were jumping the gun here – SP asked for the forms to fill in
NP we don't have forms to fill in – the M can raise it with their O and the O fills in the forms and that comes to me and I make a decision.
NC even if there was no form to fill in you should have waited to
see what SP wanted to say to you before telling her no. If you don't have a form – tell her we don't have a form – tell her to talk to her rep and he can fill in a form.
NP the req had come in from her lawyer which can be problematic
but the req had come in and in accordance with the rules she didn't meet the qualifying rules for LA.
NC you had discretion
NP as I said if they'd had a single disco with a lawyer or a CA session and weren't aware of the rules. but if a person has been taking legal advice I
I would not have any discretion. We would not provide support.
NC when you wrote that email you knew it was quite important and you would have taken care to be careful to set everything out properly
NP it was quite routine
NC you said she should amend her existing claim to add new complaints and that was when her 10 day hearing was less than three weeks away – so even if SP had tried to amend her claim – that would have resulted in a postponement and potentially a further postponement
to her disc process.
NP potentially yes
NC how much did you know about her first claim other than she had legal advice
NP wasn't involved directly – was aware of the content
NC you'd have a vastly more superficial knowledge than her legal team
NP yes
NC your idea she should amend her claim was absurd
NP no I don't think it was – I understand its diff to ask people to consider postponing a tribunal, but I saw this as an ongoing victimisation and from a previous case I was told this would make it stronger case and I thought this related to SP's case
NC is your evidence to the tribunal that you were better placed by reference to an analogy to a diff case she was better placed to amend than her legal team.
NP that was my decision at the time. Also her legal team were running a strategy in her disc that was contrary to
the way SF would have run it.
NC ludicrous of you to offer advice to amend
NP no and her legal team had discussed doing the same
NC but the legal team had all the facts
NP and that's why i struggled with whether it would be right to suggest it, but I thought it was the right
thing to do.
NC you hadn't even had sight of pleadings in the first case had you
NP no
NC so it was an absurdly bad suggestion to make – you didn't have the grounding on which to make that advice
NP disagree – spoke to SF – I regarded the issue of amending the disc to include misgendering to be potentially ongoing victimisation – not preposterous at all to suggest it
NC your other reason for not providing LA – was because SP was getting LA from another party – you had no discretion to provide funding. If that was the case you didn't need to bolster your reasoning with advice re the ongoing claim
NP it was diff – we were getting legal advice from SP's sols on how to run SP's disc – they had been hired to deal with her claim not the disc – and we were getting LA from them on the disc which was contrary to the way we would run the disciplinary process
NC sure you had no discretion
NP yes
NC can we got to p118 – this is the On The Case RCN leaflet where it talks about advice support and representation and a good chunk of the union's work is repping the M to the employer in the workplace
NP yes
NC [reads about circs as to decisions by the union not to rep someone and over the page the unions rights not to represent people in certain circs – acting improperly, untrue statements, threatened a rep etc etc]
NC and that would encompass legal rep but primarily
that is addressing legal representation in the workplace.
NP yes
NC the advice spoken about in here isn't just limited to legal advice
NP correct
NC and it says it says we "may" not represent you if you're getting legal advice not that we won't
NP yes but as I said in my evidence before – and I've not deviated from this in 18 years – the only time we would give legal advice is if the M was not aware of the rule
NC but this isn't just about legal advice is it – it's about all advice and SF continued to rep SP during the disc process.
NP yes we agreed with MG that we would continue to rep SP in the disc process whilst MG looked after the employment claim
NC but my point is that both MG and SF and GT and SP were working together on getting SP through both the processes.
NP well sometimes and at other times there was advice being given directly contradictory to what we would advise
NC but the advice in the leaflet is generic – there's nothing explicit to tie your hands to say you can't give legal or must withdraw your advice
NP we never withdrew our advice – we were never asked to provide LA for the employment claim.
NC but this clause covers both advice for disc claim and legal claim and gives you discretion to do that by the word "may"
NP I have consistently applied it in the way I hav described over 18 years and I am satisfied with the decision I have made
NC the reason for that clause is so that it's clear who is repping someone.
NP yes
NC and on these facts you had no reason to think it wouldn't be completely clear who is doing what
NP there were two different processes going on
NC wouldn't it be a good idea for you step up and help your M given she was badly let down when she first went to you for help.
NP don't agree she was let down and I am satisfied I made the right decision according to our rules which I work with every day
NC what was on your mind when you refused the req fr LA
NP the decisions I put in the letter
NC what material did you read before coming to your decision
NP didn't read any
NC didn't read the disc report
NP no
NC turn to p412 – that's MG's letter complaining you've come to
a decision before seeing the application.
[we're going round in circles a bit here – NP is rock solid on the fact that if a M has taken legal advice on a matter the RCN won't provide it whatever it says in the rules about "may" and it being discretionary on circs]
[SP team saying it should have been provided because it was an entirely separate case. Don't think SP can argue (or is arguing) that she hadn't received legal advice from MG about the issue that she wanted the union to take on]
NC your decision letter is that she's taken legal advice so it's not in your discretion and that she should amend her claim – you now seem to be adding a third reason which is that MG was advising SF on how to run the disc process
NP no my view that she was taking legal advice was beyond simple advice – the advice was more than that.
NC on 24 Feb 2025 you wrote a longer letter direct to SP on why you could not provide legal advice – and you say in there in 2nd par – "you did not seek RCN's assistance prior to submitting your claim" – but she did, didn't she – she went to RCND and RCND caused SF to call her
NP she contacted us but not to request we make a legal claim – she called SF and advised him she was about to start a suspension – there was no disco about legal claim until 5 Feb – so between SF speaking her in early Jan and next contact on 5 Feb – SP had already engaged a sol
NP there was no indication that SP sought or needed LA – all we had was the info of the confrontation and the suspension – nothing from the employer nothing from SP
NP there was no request for LA
NC p320 – if a member were to call RCND and speak to an RCN and say my manager has been picking on me since I rebuffed his unwanted sexual advances and now I'm on a trumped disc charges, or I complained about bad infection control on a ward and a managed put me on trumped up disc charges – you would expect an RCN rep to say – right you're a victim of sex harassment or you've made a protected disc – the RCN's O's job is to pin the labels on
NP in my exp that would not nec happen at that very early stage – it would prob happen at a later stage – a M will come to us with their story and that's quite right – then you get the evidence from the employer and it's often not quite in the way teh member describes and we will not usually raise a case until we have heard from both. After we heard from SP – she had engaged LA before a second convo or any info from her employer
NP I think if we had put the situation to LA assessment that early it might have fallen below the merit assessment for a legal case
NC are you really telling the tribunal that if we replace the story that we see at p320 with a similar story about infection control – or sex harassment – the officer would not say that looks like a detriment for a protected disc or sex harassment.
NP it would be v unusual to do that that early. We are always aware of the time bar but sometimes that doesn't start until the end of a disc process.
NC can we go back to p416 your second letter explaining why you have refused assistance
NC "impossible to separate them from the current proceedings as they are inextricably linked" – that's circular isn't it
NP Impossible might be a bit strong, but they are inextricably link
[oh god we're going into the advice to amend rather than raise a second case thing again]
NC it was perfectly possible to separate the two claims as there were two separate claims going through the system
NP impossible is too strong, but my advice and my view was it might stronger to co-join them
NC the LA you took on the second claim was on the basis of no info – you said you didn't read anything.
NP no – a three way convo took place between me SF and our external legal advisors – so I had acquired info from SF and we got our own advice and that informed my decision
NC in your email you say the ET claim was now part heard and SP had got independent LA – so in that par you are trying to bolster your decision with another reason which was nothing to do with your decision
NP that's true
NC so MG sets out all the reasons your decision doesn't make sense and comes to the conc that the real reason you refused to accept was due to her GC beliefs
NP I understand that's her position and I refute that entirely.
NC [takes NP back to SF's note of SF's first convo with SP in which SP tells SF she did not want Dr Upton in her changing room because he was a man and reads it out] – that's a clear demo of her GC beliefs
NP we did not know it was a firmly held belief
NC SP said she had never heard of GC when the confrontation with DU happened
NP yes
NC and it wasn't for her to know that her belief was protected in law
NP it was too early for a legal referral – we needed more info before we could apply a test
NC – okay SF might not have known, but SF did nothing to explore her view
NP it had come through from RCND and told him she was going to be suspended – it was a "quick call" after the note came through and SF's role was to talk her through the process of suspension
it was absolutely the right thing to do to wait, to gather information and then have a longer conversation about the possible options
NC we have been told that SF appears to think that the call with SP took 40 mins and SP thinks it was 10 minnutes – were the notes reflective of a 30 -40 minut convo
NP don't know how long the convo took
NC we'll take it up with SF
NC can we go to p425 – this is a letter from MG expressing disappointment that the union had not intervened on the issue of single sex space in Fife and referred to the letter sent in the Darlington Nurses case.
NC you have seen this – an exemplary short letter from Sarah Dodsworth from the RCN to the Darlington NHS Trust – why couldn't a letter be sent to Fife
NP in Scotland we have Once in Scotland policy for all NHS Trusts – so we raise the issue at SWAG
NP England is different – it's all done through SWAG – I told SF and GT that I had no problem with us writing to NHS Fife re Sandy's case about her returning to work, but on a policy level it would be done through SWAG.
NC and you responded to MG on 27 May – and the gist of your letter "was that the scot gov was kicking it into the long grass and you, the unions were prepared to let them"
NP scot gov were kicking it into the long grass yes, but I was making the argument was that SG were repped at SWAG and that the normal process for policy direction should be followed.
NC lets look at p824 – the SWAG minutes – there were no policies in place on TG staff was there
NP no there were some in dev, but they all got frozen after the SC judgment and therefore the process should be followed to get new policies out
NC yes but there was a practice which had grown up and was manifesting in NHS Fife which was to the detriment of female staff – carried out with no impact assessment no equality assessment, no consultation and you the union were doing nothing about it
NP we thought pushing to develop a policy through SWAG was the way to do it
NC you had the SC judgment. NHS fife had adopted an unlawful local practice – not laid down – you knew it was unlawful and you were sitting on your hands and the scot gov were kicking it into the long grass and you RCN were letting them do it
NP this was raised at SWAG, it was raised at subsequent meetings, at the SWAG secretariat and I asked it be minuted that the unions were frustrated at the fact it was not being moved on
NC MG sends a letter 5 June saying she wants assurance that SP's employer is complying with the law and answers to the questions she asked on 21 May – you reply that you were waiting for SG to act and refer MG to your solicitors and we see their response on p444 which reiterates the same position
NC can we go to p518 – asking if any FIfe members have been in touch with concerns about toilets and CRs and the answer was no and on p519 GT writes to SP saying there had been no secondary complainants and therefore a collective grievance could be raised. It should have been obvious why no one had raised it because they had seen what had happened to SP the year before
SP i can't offer a view on that, because I don't know what they might be thinking
NC that's in fact all I have
J no qs from me – any re-ex
DH v briefly
DH in some of the qs you were asked you were directed to the Carr review which is in the supplementary bundles beginning p1122… – turn to next page. we can see the date of the report – 2022
NP yes
DH Sep 2022 – I wondered if any steps had been taken or any work had been done in the light of the concs in this report
NP yes an action plan produced after Carr report – a number of council members stood down, new guidance, ongoing nmc processes related to some of those
members.
DH thank you. In the "Fair Care for Trans Patients" – just want to be clear you drew a distinction between a policy and a guide
NP a policy might have given advice to our stewards and reps, whereas a clinical guide helps inform the nurse's practice – given as part of our
role as a professional body.
DH also taken to a doc on p1256 – this was re Meeting to Discuss Recommendations… and on the first page – the first set of bullet points – first bullet point noted need to update DOI to put in place current actual and perceived conflicts of interest
NP yes
DH you were taken to tweets and posts by Ellie Mulreany – when was the first time you came to see any of the tweets on p24 – 30
NP first time was in reading the bundle for this tribunal
DH those are all my qs in re-ex
J that concludes your evidnce – don't discuss your evidence with anyone due to give evidence to this tribunal
NP yes – thank you very much
J on Monday – we'll have bethany Hutchison and Jennifer Melle and then Stuart Fraser
DH yes he'll be avail from 1130
J thank you very much
[court rises]
[10am start on Monday then. Might go and get some bundle action, might start on report straight away – either way will try to get today's report up before 8pm]
Thanks very much for reading. If you've found my work useful and want to get the court report first and a subscriber-only newsletter after each day of proceedings pls consider a small donation:
genderblog.net/donate/
Thanks so much to everyone who has donated so far and thanks for reading this thread. 🫡
