Preliminary hearing in MacDonald (C) vs Public and Commercial Services Union (R) today

[AccordingToWhom]

Tribunal Tweets is covering it:

"We expect to be reporting this morning from 10 am on a preliminary hearing in MacDonald (C) vs Public and Commercial Services Union (R). The R is seeking to strike out significant portions of C's claim."

https://x.com/i/status/2051932840955179047

Is "Institutional Belief" a new concept in these cases?

I look forward to hearing details on this one, it's always good to hear about a union being sued, I hope they're held accountable and it would be nice to think they're sued into bankruptcy. Not that I'm vindictive or anything. 😇

This is from TT’s Substack.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/macdonald-vs-public-and-commercial?r=1gxdhb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

It gives the background to the case.

TT:

Abbreviations we expect to use:
C/FM - claimant Fiona Macdonald
MG - Margaret Gribbon solicitor for C
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
R/PCS - respondent, Public and Commercial Services Union
J - Employment judge, will confirm name later

TT:

RB - Respondents barrister, will update
UARM - Union's Association of Retired Members
SR/GC - sex realist or gender critical belief, biological sex is real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity;
GI - gender identity or gender identity belief

TT:

The basis of the strikeout application by the Rs is that an organisation cannot hold a belief.

that'll be news to the many religions out there.

Thanks Wolf.

The basis of the strikeout application by the Rs is that an organisation cannot hold a belief.

Wouldn't that invalidate every Union? I thought they all believed in workers rights and collective bargaining power in the belief that it was to the benefit of the workers.

we can produce evidence of the PCP, such as observance of the GI holy days

😂

(PCP = policy, criterion or practice)

Naomi Cunningham’s argument appears to be hoisting the TRAs by their own ‘manifestation’ petard.

I’m trying to catch up now.

Judgment reserved. Hopefully J's curiosity is sufficiently piqued to want to hear the evidence – as the allegation is that R has been manifesting the belief, not merely treating it as protected.

Thanks to Twoloons for pointing me here. I posted this on another thread…

Just had a read through.

The R is seeking a strike out and the initial application was that an Institution cannot hold a belief. (Obviously ridiculous - churches or church schools for instance?) However in the hearing yesterday they rowed back from this obviously realising their mistake. The R changed their claim last minute and were arguing that the holding of a belief would not constitute discrimination. They use a motion (where members voted to uphold the law on single sex toilets) to show they act lawfully.

NC acting for C is saying that PCPs (Policy Criterion or Practice) create a hostile environment. That R’s adoption of other motions (rejection of the Sullivan Report proposals on accurate data and how this was presented, plus social media posts, union flags protesting Let Women Speak events etc) are problematic as a general manifestation of the union belief. Hence indirect discrimination on the basis of a hostile environment as a general state of affairs - resulting in disengagement and inhibiting involvement in organisation/committees/seeking posts etc. NC says she’d expect terms and evidence to be agreed at Case Management stage so this attempt to strike out is heavy handed.

Hopefully Ive got that all about right - any lawyers please do check my homework!?
Judge to review papers and give a view in writing at a later date.

Skeleton argument papers from this hearing were agreed to be public documents Si will presumably appear online at some stage

Looks like this will be a very interesting case.

All those organisations who sent those dreadful emails after the SC Ruling last year might live to regret them…

Thanks, @KnottyAuty. I think NC also said they were able to offer a lot more examples of the PCPs manifesting as a hostile environment, and that she would have already done so if the R had given reasonable notice and not come in so late with a changed application.

Dream team assembled!

She’s absolutely fantastic in how she’s turned it into a holy show about a belief. And she does it so well.

I found TT on NItter, for non X-ers like myself:
Tribunal Tweets (@tribunaltweets) | nitter

This has prompted me to become a paid subscriber to TT - thanks to them all for their efforts. Without their journalistic persistence, we might all be utterly clueless

Thank you all for your interest. This is a better summation than I have posted elsewhere. Thank you and stealing with your permission!

Fiona

Go Fiona @Clotheshorsesarehorses !!

💪👸

Threadreader has unrolls at https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2051932840955179047.html and https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2051984436531548170.html

"Observance of the GI holy days" is a brilliant description of Trans Day Of Visibility and Trans Day Of Remembrance 😂

And the skeleton arguments can be read here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/macdonald-vs-public-and-commercial

Please donate and subscribe to Tribunal Tweets - their work is incredible.

@Clotheshorsesarehorses - any idea on next hearing dates & how we can get remote access?

We are hoping in the next 4 to 6 weeks. You can write to the Tribunal Service in York St, Glasgow regarding remote access. Access to virtual hearings | Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service https://share.google/uIT8J9ZGweGoWYc2S

They use a motion (where members voted to uphold the law on single sex toilets) to show they act lawfully.

great news that the members voted to uphold the law on SSS, which must have pissed off the activists within union leadership.