#employment tribunals statement

[reasonsforhope]

"Millions of Australians just got official permission to ignore their bosses outside of working hours, thanks to a new law enshrining their "right to disconnect."

The law doesn't strictly prohibit employers from calling or messaging their workers after hours. But it does protect employees who "refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact outside their working hours, unless their refusal is unreasonable," according to the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

That includes outreach from their employer, as well as other people "if the contact or attempted contact is work-related."

The law, which passed in February, took effect on Monday [August 26, 2024] for most workers and will apply to small businesses of fewer than 15 people starting in August 2025. It adds Australia to a growing list of countries aiming to protect workers' free time.

"It's really about trying to bring back some work-life balance and make sure that people aren't racking up hours of unpaid overtime for checking emails and responding to things at a time when they're not being paid," said Sen. Murray Watt, Australia's minister for employment and workplace relations.

The law doesn't give employees a complete pass, however...

"If it was an emergency situation, of course people would expect an employee to respond to something like that," Watt said. "But if it's a run-of-the-mill thing … then they should wait till the next work day, so that people can actually enjoy their private lives, enjoy time with their family and their friends, play sport or whatever they want to do after hours, without feeling like they're chained to the desk at a time when they're not actually being paid, because that's just not fair."

Protections aim to address erosion of work-life balance

The law's supporters hope it will help solidify the boundary between the personal and the professional, which has become increasingly blurry with the rise of remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic.

A 2022 survey by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, a public policy think tank, found that seven out of 10 Australians performed work outside of scheduled working hours, with many reporting experiencing physical tiredness, stress and anxiety as a result.

The following year, the institute reported that Australians clocked an average of 281 hours of unpaid overtime in 2023. Valuing that labor at average wage rates, it estimated the average worker is losing the equivalent of nearly $7,500 U.S. dollars each year.

"This is particularly concerning when worker's share of national income remains at a historically low level, wage growth is not keeping up with inflation, and the cost of living is rising," it added.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions hailed the new law as a "cost-of-living win for working people," especially those in industries like teaching, community services and administrative work.

The right to disconnect, it said, will not only cut down on Australians' unpaid work hours but also address the "growing crisis of increasing mental health illness and injuries in modern workplaces."

"More money in your pocket, more time with your loved ones and more freedom to live your life — that's what the right to disconnect is all about," ACTU President Michele O’Neil said in a statement.

The 2022 Australia Institute survey... found broad support for a right to disconnect.

Only 9% of respondents said such a policy would not positively affect their lives. And the rest cited a slew of positive effects, from having more social and family time to improved mental health and job satisfaction. Thirty percent of respondents said it would enable them to be more productive during work hours.

Eurofound, the European Union agency for the improvement of living and working conditions, said in a 2023 study that workers at companies with a right to disconnect policy reported better work-life balance than those without — 92% versus 80%."

-via GoodGoodGood, August 26, 2024

[probablyasocialecologist]

GCs claim to campaign for the “safety” of women and children. I’ve long suspected this was confined to the “right kind” of women and children. Kathleen Stock, a former trustee of the “LGB Alliance” (public statements of which include “adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality…”) appeared (to me) to suggest that it would be “more honest” for high-profile trans allies to publicly “declare” if they have trans children. Her post made no mention of obtaining the children’s consent. It seems reasonable to interpret this as a call for the public outing of certain trans children. Given “out” trans children have been murdered and 64% are subjected to bullying, it strikes me as, at the very least, callous. Joey Barton, one of the movement’s most high profile (and oft platformed) voices, will shortly stand trial accused of assaulting his wife. Donald Trump, who was found by a jury to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll, has increasingly made attacks on trans people a campaign talking point. The GC movement has claimed a degree of legitimacy based on previous legal successes, notably the case of Forstater v CGD Europe, in which GC beliefs were declared “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Some seem to have interpreted this as a licence to persecute trans people. This summer three separate courts gave clear statements to the contrary. The Employment Tribunal upheld the sacking of teacher Kevin Lister after he equated being transgender (as one of his students was) with having a mental illness. The High Court upheld an order banning Joshua Sutcliffe from teaching children after he repeatedly misgendered a child in his care. In Australia, the Federal Court prohibited a dating app from discriminating against trans women. The message from the courts is clear: GC beliefs are worthy of respect, but GCs must also respect trans people. The summer of court losses also undermines the movement’s claims to expertise. High profile GC activists often hold themselves out as experts. The courts made clear that many are no such thing. Maya Forstater gave “expert” evidence in the Sutcliffe case. The judge was “not persuaded that she is properly described as an expert”, noting: “Ms Forstater explained that the use of non-preferred pronouns in this case might be due to cognitive dissonance. Mr Phillips was not, however, able to identify any medical expertise that she might have to opine on that issue.” Helen Joyce, Director of Advocacy at the GC group “Sex Matters”, purported to give “expert” evidence in the Australian case. The judge said she: “…does not have any formal education or qualifications even in biology, let alone in gender, sex or law… she is not an expert at all. She has no recognised expertise in any of the areas in which she expresses an opinion.” In April the Cass Report gave a veneer of scientific legitimacy to the GC movement’s various claims. Both Labour and the Conservatives used the report as justification to prevent trans children from accessing puberty blockers (which, contrary to popular myth, do not prevent puberty but, rather, delay its onset). Cis children are still given access. The report was swiftly rejected by medical bodies around the world. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society said, in a joint statement, “Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions”. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists followed suit. The British Medical Association called Cass’ claims “unsubstantiated”. I’d argue the report was largely debunked by a Yale School of Medicine review.

15 September 2024

[ukrfeminism]

A lawyer and the government department she works with are being sued after she made gender-critical statements at work, including expressing the belief that only women menstruate. 

Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley works at an arm’s-length body affiliated to the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and is a chairwoman of a civil service network that represents staff with gender-critical views. 

She is one of three key signatories of an explosive letter sent in October to the cabinet secretary warning the impartiality of the civil service was under threat because anyone with gender-critical views was “openly and unlawfully bullied and harassed”. 

The confidential letter, seen by The Times, makes serious claims about a “small number of active gender ideologues” embedded in the civil service who brief against ministers and seek to alter official documents.

Duemmer Wrigley will appear at an employment tribunal next week accused of harassment for several comments and posts shared in the workplace. An employee of another body affiliated to Defra is suing the government department for allowing the network to exist and Duemmer Wrigley personally for her views. 

These include a statement made during a seminar on female autism that “only women menstruate” and a link to My Body is Me!, a book that encourages young children to understand and accept their bodies. A post in which she celebrates “diversity of belief” and explains that being gender-critical is a protected belief has also been penalised.

The Sex Equality and Equity Network (Seen) is an official civil service network with more than 700 members in 50 government departments who support the belief that biological sex is binary and immutable. Duemmer Wrigley is chairwoman of Defra’s Seen network and believes she is being targeted as a figurehead.

The claimant, who has not been named, has accused Defra bosses of creating a “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment” and is calling for a disbanding of the departmental SEEN network and, potentially, the cross-governmental network as well. 

Duemmer Wrigley warns that if successful, the case would have a “chilling effect” that could silence all gender criticism in the civil service.

“[It] would effectively preclude any public gender-critical discourse in the workplace,” she writes in a statement. 

“It has been brought at a time when employees with gender-critical beliefs in many organisations, both in the civil service and beyond, are already facing vexatious, chilling or bullying attacks. I believe if this case succeeds, these attacks are likely to escalate. I believe if this case succeeds there will be no place in the civil service for those with sex realist views.”

It comes months after the letter to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, called for “urgent action to ensure that civil service impartiality is upheld, and freedom of belief is respected”.

It warns that unchallenged bias in relation to gender is having a direct impact on policy, based on interviews and evidence from SEEN members across government.

The letter cites efforts from some staff to “remove contributions to government consultations that relate to sex instead of gender” and “quietly briefing external organisations on how to circumnavigate ministerial direction”. 

It alleges there is an “active obfuscation of facts” among some trans activist civil servants to “prevent ministers seeing the impact of trans-inclusive policies” and evidence of internal policy being leaked to “partisan organisations”. 

Maya Forstater, executive director of Sex Matters, a human rights organisation that campaigns for clarity on sex in law, policy and language, said: “This is a shocking case, which follows revelations by civil servant whistleblowers about a ‘culture of fear’ among gender-critical civil servants across Whitehall. 

“It is not reasonable to view the existence of a network of gender-critical colleagues as ‘harassment’. 

“The civil service needs to have a robust culture of integrity, objectivity and accountability, and treat all its employees fairly. Civil servants should not expect to be kept “safe” from encountering ideas or people they don’t agree with.”

A government spokesman said: “We are unable to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

[beardedmrbean]

A male teacher at an all-girls grammar school has been awarded £45,000 after he was sacked over sex assault claims pupils later said had been made up ‘for fun’. 

Jonathan Hawker, who taught maths and computing, lost his job at Devonport High School for Girls after pupils said he assaulted them by touching their thighs and massaging their shoulders. 

He endured the ‘brutal experience’ of being arrested at his home before being dismissed from the Plymouth school for gross misconduct. 

His appeal against the sacking was then rejected, despite police dropping the charges. 

He has now been awarded £44,868 – his annual salary – after an employment tribunal ruled the school’s investigation was ‘wholly inadequate’. 

The school also failed to provide ‘a safe working environment for its staff, in particular men’, the panel added. 

The tribunal, held remotely at Bristol, heard a student wrote a statement to her tutor that another girl – identified only as Student H – had said Mr Hawker had touched her leg. 

Ruth Morgan, the head of safeguarding, spoke to Student H, who said that during a lesson Mr Hawker had knelt down next to her and put his hand on her thigh, the tribunal heard. 

In further discussions with other pupils, Mrs Morgan heard of a ‘similar incident’ described by students, as well as false rumours Mr Hawker had previously been suspended for ‘touching a year 9 student’ and had an affair with a sixth former. 

The hearing was told that on the instruction of the school’s acting Head, Beverly Bell, Mrs Morgan took statements from the girls. 

One girl, Student D, reported that Mr Hawker had made her feel ‘very uncomfortable’, by ‘massaging my shoulders and stroking my arms’. 

She said she had seen Mr Hawker stroking other girls’ thighs and that other girls, Student G and Student F, had said that happened to them. 

The teacher was also accused of winking at girls, the panel was told. 

Mr Hawker was suspended pending investigation on June 28, 2021. 

However, in July, two girls from the year above said they had been stood with the group of accusers when they admitted they tried to get Mr Hawker fired ‘for fun’, the hearing was told. 

This was passed on to the head, but the tribunal heard the school ‘appeared to reject’ the older girls’ account. 

Mr Hawker was arrested in September 2021 after two of the original group agreed to police involvement, the hearing was told. 

An internal investigation was launched at the school in November and he was dismissed in February 2022. 

Police dropped all charges a month later. 

Employment Judge Martha Street upheld his claim of unfair dismissal and criticised the school’s investigation into the girls’ allegations.  ‘A fair investigation would at the least have included a transcript of the interviews with them,’ she said.   ‘I make no finding on whether Mr Hawker committed the misconduct alleged. 

‘What I can say is that if he is innocent, and a playground plot can end a career and destroy a reputation, the school is not providing a safe working environment for its staff, in particular for its male staff.  ‘No reasonable employer would conclude that the younger girls were giving truthful evidence in good faith without question; that is, without exploring the contrary evidence including the contemporary evidence from the older girls of a plot against Mr Hawker.  ‘The disciplinary and appeal panel failed in their evaluation of the evidence.’ 

The judge said the disciplinary panel and subsequent appeal panel was presented with ‘wholly inadequate’ findings. 

‘In a career-ending case, the investigation has to be as full as possibly. 

‘This fell well short of that. The school accepted the evidence of the younger pupils without challenge or exploration and discounted, ignored or avoided finding contrary evidence.’  __________

now sue the girls

[my-vanishing-777]

Trans boss of rape crisis centre quits after damning criticism

Absolutely damning report published into ERCC. The Times has the story:

A trans activist who led a rape crisis centre has quit after a damning report found the service “damaged” survivors and failed to protect women and girls in its care.

Mridul Wadhwa’s departure was confirmed by the board of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) after the chief executive was found to have “failed to set professional standards of behaviour” and “did not understand the limits on her role’s authority”.

Wadhwa was previously identified by an employment judge as the “invisible hand” behind a “heresy hunt” against staff espousing gender-critical views.

In a statement, ERCC said: “Mridul Wadhwa and the board have decided that the time is right for a change of leadership at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

“Mridul has stood down from her role as CEO of ERCC. Recruitment of a new CEO will happen in due course.”

This week’s report, commissioned by Rape Crisis Scotland, found that Wadhwa had failed to ensure ERCC carried out its primary function: to deliver services to women and girls who have experienced sexual violence.

It said that the centre’s practices “caused damage” to survivors and some “did not feel safe” using it, according to the author, Vicky Ling, a legal specialist.

ERCC made “no mention of dedicated spaces/times for women and girls” in its current strategy document, nor in the “who we support and our services” section on its website, according to the findings.

Wadhwa, who identifies as a trans woman, was put on leave in May after an employment tribunal found that she had presided over an investigation that “should not have been launched in the first place”. They found it was designed to force out a member of staff who held gender-critical views.

The report highlighted that under Wadhwa ERCC lacked focus on the core requirements of a rape crisis centre.

During her research, Ling asked the ERCC for further information on the women-only services it provided but was told there was “very little demand” for them.

It emerged that for a 16-month period until February this year “there were no protected women-only spaces available through ERCC unless they were specifically requested”.

Ling said: “Putting women in the position of having to discuss whether the service they receive will be provided by someone who was born and continues to identify as female has caused damage and does not amount to the provision of protected ‘women-only’ spaces.”

The report also questioned the values adopted by ERCC which were not “fully consistent” with national service standards. Accepted criteria such as “survivor-centred”, “trauma-informed” and “gender-informed” were augmented by two new approaches, “loving” and “brave”.

These innovations were not “best practice”, said Ling, and appeared “both inappropriate and to raise boundary issues when used in the context of survivors of gender-based violence”.

As soon as the findings were published Rape Crisis Scotland, the umbrella group, paused referrals to the Edinburgh centre.

The report was commissioned earlier this year, as details of Wadhwa’s impact emerged during the tribunal, in which Roz Adams, a former ERCC counsellor, won her case for constructive dismissal and discrimination. She was hounded by her employers after expressing sympathy with a victim’s wish to have only a female counsellor.

Under Wadhwa, ERCC’s internal inquiry was “reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka”, according to Ian McFatridge, the employment judge.

Many critics see the ERCC crisis as the result of trans-inclusive polices pursued when Nicola Sturgeon was first minister, which they say were promoted by government-funded organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland.

Joanna Cherry, the former MP and a critic of gender ideology, said the report showed that Wadhwa “failed to set professional standards of behaviour [and] should resign or be dismissed without further delay”.

Cherry, a critic of Sturgeon’s policy, said the former first minister expected “Stalinist adherence to the leadership line” on gender issues.

The campaign group For Women Scotland said Sandy Brindley, the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, should also resign.

Marion Calder, the co-founder of For Women Scotland, said: “Brindley needs to go because this is a culture that she fostered. She has stated on multiple occasions that there are no males at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, and that approach has affected the whole of service in Scotland.

“Certain autonomous services are too scared to speak out and the most vulnerable women have been failed. Aberdeen Rape Crisis Centre was holding up trans flags on the day of the tribunal. It is culturally toxic.”

After publication of the report, the ERCC board apologised and admitted: “We got things wrong.”

In a statement, ERCC said it was “taking on board the recommendations from the independent review to ensure we place survivors voices at the heart of our strategy” and was taking daily guidance from Rape Crisis Scotland, to “not only meet but exceed the National Service Standards”.

Rape Crisis Scotland said ERCC had been told “to produce an action plan, with clear timescales, to implement the review’s recommendations”.

During the past 12 months, ERCC said it had delivered specialist support, counselling and advocacy to 1,149 survivors of sexual violence.

Wadhwa was not available for comment.

[sebsrainbowbicycle]

I really appreciate your takes on this, and no problem if you don't want to comment further! I've dealt with employment issues before but in a very different legal context/system, so it's been so useful to have more understanding of the rules and processes in place here. I'm curious if the employee does choose to appeal, do you think the leak (regardless of where it came from/if its completely accurate) would have an impact? In the system I work in, it would probably lend itself more to the accused's favor rather than the complainant, so curious if that's the same or not.

The leak shouldn’t have any impact on the appeal proceedings. I will stress, shouldn’t. Obviously if the employee appeals with their employer, there is no way to know whether the leak would impact the outcome or not. However, within the context of the employment tribunal, there are things in place that should prevent the leak being taken into account at all.

The judge and other tribunal members can only base their decision on evidence that is submitted into the appeal bundle, or presented at the appeal on the day. That is set out in law in The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. When the judge makes their decision, they will do so potentially verbally on the day, but always via a decision notice. This is a written document which advises the decision the tribunal came to, and usually a brief explanation of how they did so.

Either party involved in the tribunal can request a statement of reasons, which is a detailed statement providing the reasons the tribunal made their decision, detailing how they weighted any conflicting evidence, and what the persuading factors were. So if, for example, the fact that information had been leaked to the public (which wouldn’t be in the scope of this particular appeal) was a factor in the decision, simply put the tribunal wouldn’t (if they had any sense) put that in the statement or reasons, because it would be a clear error of law and their decision would be set aside. If it isn’t clear from the statement of reasons why exactly a decision was made, for example if they had taken something into account that they had not put in the statement of reasons, then that also is an error of law (inadequate statement of reasons), because there is case law that provides that a statement of reasons should provide the losing party with an understanding of how that decision was made (im paraphrasing but it’s not even 8am and I have only had one coffee).

So all that is to say, no it shouldn’t be a factor in the tribunal proceedings, unless either party submitted the leak as evidence, but again there would need to be compelling reasons as to why it supported either parties argument or defence, and it should only be considered within the context of those arguments.

I hope that helps 💖

[hrconsultancy]

Mastering the Art of Documentation in Workplace Investigations

Documenting workplace investigations is more than just keeping a paper trail—it's about ensuring fairness, accuracy, and compliance. Proper documentation helps create a transparent process that protects everyone involved and supports the organisation in meeting legal obligations. But how do you ensure that every detail is captured effectively? Let’s dive into the essentials of documenting workplace investigations, step by step.

Starting Strong: Why Proper Documentation Matters

Before getting into the specifics, it’s important to understand why documentation is so critical in workplace investigations. Good documentation keeps things clear, consistent, and legally sound.

Building a Clear Record from the Start

From the moment an investigation begins, maintaining a detailed record is essential. This includes everything from initial complaints to final decisions. Keeping accurate records helps ensure that every step is properly tracked, making it easier to review the process if any questions or disputes arise later.

Supporting Legal and Compliance Requirements

Documentation isn’t just about keeping things neat—it’s also a legal necessity. In the UK, employment laws require employers to handle complaints and grievances fairly and consistently. Proper documentation demonstrates that the organisation has followed the correct procedures, which can be crucial if the case ends up in court or a tribunal.

Gathering the Right Information: What to Document

Knowing what to include in your documentation is key. This section breaks down the types of information that should be captured during a workplace investigation.

Recording Initial Complaints and Concerns

Start by documenting the initial complaint or concern in detail. This should include the date the complaint was made, who made it, and the nature of the allegation. Make sure to capture all relevant details, including any supporting evidence the complainant provides, such as emails, messages, or other documents.

Documenting Interviews and Conversations

Each interview conducted during the investigation should be thoroughly documented. This means taking clear notes on who was interviewed, the date and time of the interview, and the key points discussed. It's also useful to note the tone of the conversation, any significant pauses or emotions, and any inconsistencies in statements. These details can be important in assessing credibility and forming a complete picture of what happened.

Maintaining Clarity and Organisation

Clear and organised documentation is easier to understand and more useful if the investigation's findings are ever questioned. Here’s how to keep things tidy and straightforward.

Using Templates and Standardised Forms

Templates and standardised forms are helpful tools for keeping documentation consistent. They ensure that every investigation follows the same format, which can make it easier to review and compare cases. Templates can be created for initial complaints, interview notes, evidence logs, and final reports.

Keeping Digital and Physical Records Secure

Confidentiality is critical when handling investigation records. Whether documents are kept in digital format or on paper, they need to be stored securely. Digital files should be protected with passwords, and access should be restricted to authorised personnel only. Physical records should be kept in locked cabinets in secure locations.

Ensuring Accuracy and Attention to Detail

Accurate documentation is vital for maintaining the integrity of an investigation. This section provides tips on how to make sure records are complete and precise.

Double-Checking Information for Accuracy

It’s easy to make mistakes, especially when documenting multiple interviews and collecting various pieces of evidence. Always double-check the information for accuracy, including names, dates, times, and key facts. This attention to detail can prevent misunderstandings and strengthen the credibility of the investigation.

Avoiding Personal Bias in Records

Documentation should be objective and factual. Avoid including personal opinions or assumptions in the records. Stick to what was said, what was done, and the evidence gathered. This impartial approach ensures the documentation remains professional and useful in any legal or formal review.

Reviewing and Finalising Documentation

Once the investigation is complete, the documentation should be reviewed and finalised. This step helps ensure that all necessary information is included and that the records are ready for future reference if needed.

Compiling a Comprehensive Report

At the end of the investigation, compile a final report that summarises all findings. This report should include a timeline of events, a summary of interviews, the evidence collected, and the conclusions reached. Make sure the report is clear, concise, and free from jargon, so it can be easily understood by anyone who might need to review it.

Getting Sign-Off from Relevant Parties

Before closing the case, it's important to get sign-off from key individuals, such as the investigator, HR managers, or legal advisors. This sign-off confirms that the investigation was conducted properly and that all documentation is complete and accurate.

Reflecting on the Documentation Process

Good documentation practices not only help resolve individual cases but also provide valuable lessons for improving future investigations. Here’s how to make the most of your documentation efforts.

Identifying Opportunities for Improvement

Review the documentation process regularly to identify areas where improvements could be made. This might involve updating templates, refining procedures, or providing additional training for those involved in documentation. Continuous improvement helps keep the process effective and efficient.

Encouraging Feedback from Team Members

Encourage feedback from those involved in the investigation to understand what worked well and what could be better. This feedback can provide insights into how the documentation process can be streamlined or improved, making it more effective for future investigations.

Conclusion: The Power of Effective Documentation

Documenting workplace investigations effectively is crucial for ensuring fairness, transparency, and compliance. By keeping clear, organised, and accurate records, organisations can protect themselves legally, build trust with employees, and continuously improve their investigation processes. Remember, good documentation isn't just about ticking boxes—it's about creating a reliable and transparent process that everyone can trust.

Feel free to share your experiences, tips, or thoughts on documenting workplace investigations in the comments. If you found this guide helpful, please like and share it with others who might benefit!

FAQs

1. What should be done if an error is found in the investigation documentation after the process is complete?

If an error is discovered in the documentation, it should be corrected immediately, and the correction should be noted with the date and reason for the amendment. Keeping a clear record of any changes maintains transparency and trust in the investigation process.

2. How long should investigation records be kept?

In the UK, it's generally advised to keep investigation records for at least six years, as this is the period during which most legal claims can be made. However, specific circumstances might require longer retention, so it's important to consult with legal advisors.

3. Can employees request to see the documentation related to their case?

Yes, employees have the right to request access to their personal data under the UK’s Data Protection Act. However, certain information may be withheld if it involves confidentiality concerns or impacts others' privacy rights. © Tell Jane

[nullarysources]

Australia is the latest country to give workers the 'right to disconnect' after hours

Rachel Treisman for NPR:

Millions of Australians just got official permission to ignore their bosses outside of working hours, thanks to a new law enshrining their "right to disconnect."

The law doesn't strictly prohibit employers from calling or messaging their workers after hours. But it does protect employees who "refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact outside their working hours, unless their refusal is unreasonable," according to the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

Nice

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has already pledged to repeal the right to disconnect if his coalition wins the next federal election in 2025. He has slammed it as damaging to relations between employers and employees, and portrayed it as a threat to productivity.

The Business Council of Australia echoed those concerns in a statement released Monday, saying the new workplace laws "risk holding Australia's historically low productivity back even further at a time when the economy is already stalling."

That's how you know this is a good idea

[pashterlengkap]

Texas bans trans people from changing the gender markers on their licenses

Trans people in Texas can no longer amend the gender markers on their driver’s licenses to align with their gender identity, the Texas Tribune reports. According to an internal email from the Department of Public Safety, even if a trans person presents the state with a certified court order or an amended birth certificate, the gender marker on their driver’s license cannot be altered unless the state made a clerical error. Related Judge overturns military’s ban on HIV-positive enlistees in historic victory People living with HIV were banned from enlisting in the military until now. Sheri Gipson, the chief of the Driver License Division at the Texas Department of Public Safety, confirmed the change to the KUT News on Wednesday. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today On Wednesday, a Department of Public Safety spokesperson said, “The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has recently raised concerns regarding the validity of court orders being issued which purport to order state agencies to change the sex of individuals in government records, including driver licenses and birth certificates.” “Neither DPS nor other government agencies are parties to the proceedings that result in the issuance of these court orders, and the lack of legislative authority and evidentiary standards for the courts to issue these orders has resulted in the need for a comprehensive legal review by DPS and the OAG.” “Therefore, DPS has stopped accepting these court orders as a basis to change sex identification in department records, including driver licenses.” The policy change means that vulnerable Texans are at an increased risk of harassment or discrimination in a wide range of environments: from applying for a job to going to the airport. It is expected to impact around 93,000 people. Brad Pritchett, the interim chief executive of LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality Texas, said that “just like people who change their names after marriage want their correct name on their license, trans Texans want their driver’s license to reflect their gender. We use our IDs to navigate all areas of life: driving, voting, employment. Having an ID that reflects who you are is a basic form of dignity that many take for granted.” “Texans will now be subject to involuntary surveillance for simply trying to update a government document,” said Pritchett in another statement. “There is no clear reason why this information would be useful to the DPS nor is there a legitimate reason to deny gender marker updates on driver’s licenses.” Ian Pittman is an Austin attorney who works with transgender Texans, and in the wake of the change, he has started advising his clients not to submit court orders to the state for fear they may be targeted. Texas has already passed a gender-affirming care ban for minors, and Pittman worries that it could be expanded to transgender adults in Texas. He said that the change “will put people on a list that could interfere with their health care.” http://dlvr.it/TCMvDh

[caneiwestminster]

Employment Law in Westminster: Protecting Your Rights

Employment law in Westminster is designed to protect the rights of both employees and employers, ensuring fair treatment, safe working conditions, and equitable dispute resolution. Understanding these laws is crucial for anyone involved in the workforce, as they cover a wide range of issues from discrimination and harassment to wage disputes and wrongful termination. Here’s what you need to know about employment law in Westminster and how it safeguards your rights.

Discrimination and Harassment

One of the fundamental protections under employment law in Westminster is the prohibition against discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The Equality Act 2010 is a key piece of legislation that protects employees from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and religion. Employers are required to provide a work environment free from harassment, and they must take appropriate action if such issues arise.

Employees who experience discrimination or harassment have the right to file a complaint with their employer or a relevant authority. Legal remedies can include compensation for damages, reinstatement, or changes to workplace policies. Understanding your rights under the Equality Act is essential for ensuring a fair and respectful work environment.

Wage and Hour Laws

Employment law in Westminster also encompasses wage and hour regulations to ensure employees are compensated fairly for their work. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Living Wage provide the minimum pay rates that employers must adhere to. These laws are designed to prevent exploitation and ensure a standard of living for all workers.

Employees should also be aware of their rights regarding working hours and overtime. The Working Time Regulations 1998 outline maximum weekly working hours, rest breaks, and annual leave entitlements. If an employer fails to comply with these regulations, employees have the right to seek legal recourse.

Employment Contracts and Rights

Employment contracts are a critical component of employment law. These contracts outline the terms and conditions of employment, including job duties, salary, working hours, and termination procedures. In Westminster, both employers and employees are legally bound by the terms of the employment contract.

Employees have the right to receive a written statement of employment particulars within two months of starting work. This statement should include essential information such as job title, pay, and working hours. If an employer breaches the terms of the contract, employees can seek legal advice to address the issue and potentially claim compensation for any losses incurred.

Health and Safety

Ensuring a safe working environment is another crucial aspect of employment law in Westminster. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires employers to provide a workplace that is free from hazards and to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their employees. This includes conducting risk assessments, providing necessary training, and ensuring that equipment and facilities are safe to use.

Employees have the right to report unsafe working conditions without fear of retaliation. If an employer fails to address health and safety concerns, employees can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for further investigation and action.

Wrongful Termination and Redundancy

Employment law also protects employees from wrongful termination and ensures fair procedures in cases of redundancy. Wrongful termination occurs when an employee is dismissed in breach of their employment contract or without proper notice. Employees who believe they have been wrongfully terminated can file a claim with an employment tribunal.

In cases of redundancy, employers must follow a fair process and provide appropriate compensation. This includes consulting with affected employees, considering alternative employment options within the company, and providing redundancy pay based on length of service.

Conclusion

Employment law in Westminster plays a vital role in protecting the rights of employees and ensuring fair treatment in the workplace. From safeguarding against discrimination and harassment to ensuring fair pay and safe working conditions, these laws provide a framework for equitable employment practices. Employees who are aware of their rights and seek legal advice when necessary can better navigate the complexities of the workplace and ensure their rights are upheld.

[epacer]

San Diego Unified School District

SDUSD police chief retires amid harassment lawsuit filed by nearly a dozen officers

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) announced on Friday that district Police Chief Alfonso Contreras will retire. The timing comes amid an ongoing lawsuit filed by nearly a dozen officers last December against SDUSD Superintendent Lamont Jackson, the district Police Department, and Chief Contreras.

Allegations started to surface in July of 2023, when nine officers came forward with allegations that for years they were targeted and unfairly treated by Chief Contreras. Contreras, who has been with SDUSD's Police Department for more than 30 years, became Police Chief in 2022. That's when, according to the officers represented in the lawsuit, things started to change.

Among the changes was the forming of a group of roughly five or six officers named "The Club," consisting of now-former Police Chief Contreras, and his long-time girlfriend Sgt. Jenifer Gruner.

The lawsuit details instances of favoritism and employment law violations, and retaliation against certain officers who did not comply with "The Club". NBC 7 spoke with Jesus Montana in December of last year, on the day the lawsuit was first announced.

"The district will not protect our employees, someone has to, and we 11 are stepping forward," said Sgt. Montana.

Response from lead trial attorney

In a statement from John Gomez, the lead trial attorney representing the officers, they said: "Our clients are pleased and relieved that Chief Contreras has chosen to retire in the face of the pending investigations brought about by our lawsuit. Dysfunction, favoritism, and disaccord have no place in a law enforcement agency especially one that protects hundreds of thousands of kids within city schools. With Contreras gone, our clients look forward to getting back to what’s most important: Protecting the students, teachers, and staff of the San Diego Unified School District".

NBC 7 has been reaching out to SDUSD since August of last year for comment on the allegations, as well as the resulting lawsuit. At the time, a district spokeswoman told us the district does not comment on pending litigation, and that all the allegations received by the district are taken seriously.

In a memo obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune that was sent to school police personnel last Friday, interim Police Chief Donald Braum wrote in part: "The District would like to thank Chief Contreras for all his efforts and contributions to provide a safe learning environment for our students, staff and communities for the past 32 years."

The lawsuit is still in the early stages. The prosecution and defense will meet with the judge in November of 2025, when they will hash out how they want to move forward with the case.

SDUSD POA President responds

Caleb Arnold, San Diego Unified School District Police Department POA President, responded to Contreras' retirement with the statement below:

"Now that the retirement of Chief Alfonso Contreras has been made official, the Police Officer Association of the San Diego Unified School District is excited to finally move forward in an effort to heal a department that has endured so much the past two years.

We are hoping that the POA will have significant involvement and input in the hiring of the next Chief of Police.

Once again, we are asking the district to listen to its Officers and value our opinion as these are very important decisions that will affect the future of the department. We hope our requests do not fall on deaf ears as they have in the past. It is time to heal this department."

The Police Union, SDUSD, as well as the attorney representing the officers could not be immediately reached for comment on Chief Contreras' retirement. *Reposted article from NBC 7 by Adonis Albright on May 26, 2024

[xtruss]

Former President National Union of Students (NUS), Shaima Dallali. "I Am An Anti-Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗, And A Proud Pro-Palestinian.”

Former NUS President Settles With Union Over Antisemitism Claims

Shaima Dallali, ousted as NUS president in 2022, said to have accepted ‘substantial’ settlement before tribunal

— Richard Adams, Education Editor | May 07, 2024 | Guardian USA

A former president of the National Union of Students is said to have accepted a “substantial” settlement to end her legal action against the union following her dismissal over allegations of antisemitism.

Shaima Dallali was ousted as NUS UK president in November 2022 after an investigation claimed she had made “significant breaches” of the union’s antisemitism policies. But shortly before Dallali’s legal challenge was to be heard by an employment tribunal, the NUS and Dallali’s lawyers said a settlement had been agreed.

A joint statement read: “We are pleased to confirm that a settlement has been reached between Shaima Dallali and the National Union of Students, bringing an end to the proceedings before the employment tribunal.”

Dallali’s dismissal came after an investigation into antisemitism within the organisation, headed by a barrister, Rebecca Tuck, amid concerns over a social media post written 10 years earlier by Dallali that referenced a seventh-century battle between Muslims and Jews.

The NUS said it now accepted that “pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist beliefs may be protected beliefs, as may pro-Zionist beliefs. As a private individual Ms Dallali is, and as president of NUS she was, entitled to hold protected beliefs.”

The NUS statement added: “Throughout this matter, Ms Dallali has suffered truly horrific abuse, which has included death threats, threats of sexual assault and flagrant Islamophobia. This is wholly unacceptable, and NUS categorically condemn it.

“Ms Dallali now has the right to move on with her life and her career free from harassment or abuse.”

While both sides said the terms of the settlement were confidential, people familiar with the case said it was likely that the union had paid Dallali’s legal costs and a further sum as part of the settlement.

The settlement follows a ruling earlier this year that David Miller, a former professor at the University of Bristol, had been unfairly dismissed over his anti-Zionist views, which qualify as philosophical beliefs protected under the Equality Act.

Tayab Ali, the director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, said: “We now have clear legal recognition that criticism of Israel and of Zionism amounts to a protected belief and cannot be suppressed. This must be considered by universities before they decide to take any disciplinary or other action against their students.”

Dallali said: “I am an anti-Zionist and a proud pro-Palestinian. Following today’s settlement, I look forward to being able to focus on continuing to dedicate myself to the Palestinian cause and to serving my community.

“I am immensely grateful to those who have supported me during this difficult chapter in my life and I am pleased that all parties can now move on. Now more than ever, it is important that all communities come together for peace and justice.”

The NUS UK’s latest accounts revealed that the union spent more than £800,000 on the antisemitism investigation since 2022.

After Dallali’s election as president in March 2022, the NUS received complaints about her 2012 tweet that read: “Khaybar Khaybar O Jews … Muhammad’s army will return Gaza,” referencing a historical battle. Dallali later apologised for the tweet.

The joint statement issued on Tuesday said: “As has been noted repeatedly in the media, NUS was very concerned by a tweet that was written by Ms Dallali when she was a teenager, before she was even a student, in 2012.

“Ms Dallali has accepted that while it was not her intention, the tweet was antisemitic. Both parties accept that Ms Dallali has repeatedly apologised for that tweet.”

[ukrfeminism]

A professor of criminology, who was compared with “a racist uncle at the Christmas table” because of her gender critical beliefs, has won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University.

Prof Jo Phoenix, a lesbian who set up the Gender Critical Research Network (GCRN) at the OU, was also found to have suffered victimisation and harassment, as well as direct discrimination.

She becomes the latest in a series of gender critical feminists, who believe sex is biological, immutable and should be prioritised over gender identity, to win employment tribunals.

In a judgment published on Monday, the tribunal found that Prof Louise Westmarland, head of discipline in social policy and criminology at the OU, made the “racist uncle” comment, which amounted to harassment, because she was unhappy about Phoenix signing a letter in the Sunday Times registering disquiet over a perceived inappropriately close relationship between the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall and UK universities, and about her expressing her gender critical beliefs at a Women’s Place UK talk.

The tribunal panel, led by Judge Jennifer Young, found that Westmarland “was effectively telling the claimant off for having expressed gender critical beliefs”.

“Prof Westmarland knew that likening the claimant to a racist was upsetting for the claimant. We conclude that its purpose was to violate the claimant’s dignity because inherent in the comment is an insult of being put in the same category as racists”.

The panel found instances of direct discrimination including the prohibition of Phoenix from speaking at departmental meetings about her experiences of being treated in detrimental ways because of her gender critical beliefs or talking about her gender critical research. Additionally there was “silence and lack of praise” motivated by her gender critical beliefs when she obtained a C$1m grant while another colleague was praised just for making a grant application, according to the tribunal.

After Phoenix set up the GCRN, 368 of her colleagues signed an open letter calling for the disaffiliation of the group, which it labelled transphobic, from the OU because of the beliefs of its members. OU did not take action to ask those behind the letter, published in a Google Doc, to take it down and the tribunal said this was harassment, having “a chilling effect on the claimant expressing her gender critical beliefs and carrying out gender critical research”. A statement about the GCRN in a similar vein to the open letter was published on the university’s website by the wellbeing, education and language studies faculty/reproduction, sexualities and sexual health research group. There were also tweets and retweets from colleagues about the GCRN.

Phoenix resigned from the OU in December 2021. The tribunal found that she was constructively unfairly dismissed because the university breached the implied terms of trust and confidence in her employment contract and the duty to provide her with a suitable working environment. Remedies will be determined at a later date.

The judgment said: “We find that the claimant was not provided with effective protection from the effects of the launch of the GCRN. We find that the respondent did not provide the claimant protection particularly in the form of asking staff and students not to launch campaigns to deplatform the GCRN, or make calls to remove support for the claimant’s gender critical research, or use social media to label the claimant transphobic or TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). The respondent failed to protect the claimant because they did not want to be seen to give any kind of support to academics with gender critical beliefs, including the claimant.”

Prof Tim Blackman, vice-chancellor of the OU, said the university was disappointed by the judgment and would consider whether to appeal. He said: “We acknowledge that we can learn from this judgment and are considering the findings very carefully.

“We are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of everyone involved in the case and acknowledge the significant impact it has had on Prof Phoenix, the witnesses and many other colleagues. Our priority has been to protect freedom of speech while respecting legal rights and protections.”

[latestgovtjobnews]

Indian Railways seeks 14 Technical Members for Railway Claims Tribunal; selection via qualifications, experience, and interaction.

New Post has been published on https://www.jobsarkari.in/indian-railways-seeks-14-technical-members-for-railway-claims-tribunal-selection-via-qualifications-experience-and-interaction/

Indian Railways seeks 14 Technical Members for Railway Claims Tribunal; selection via qualifications, experience, and interaction.

The Indian Railways is accepting applications for the position of Technical Member in the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT). The RCT is a statutory authority with its headquarters in Delhi and 23 regional Benches throughout the country. The Technical Member will be assigned to one of these locations upon selection.

There are a total of 14 vacancies for the position of Technical Member, with one vacancy each at various locations such as Ernakulam, Lucknow, Chandigarh, Bhubaneswar, Guwahati, Ranchi, Ahmedabad, Bhopal, Jaipur, and Secunderabad. Additionally, there are two vacancies each at Delhi and Mumbai. It is important to note that the number of vacancies and their locations may be subject to change.

Candidates interested in applying for the position should possess experience and knowledge in commercial and claims matters pertaining to passenger and goods traffic on Indian Railways. The eligibility criteria, salary, and other terms and conditions will be regulated by the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021/Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The selection process will be conducted by the Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), which is established under the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021. The committee will evaluate the applications based on the suitability of candidates for the position, taking into account their qualifications and experience. Shortlisted candidates will be invited for a personal interaction, and the final selection will be based on an overall assessment.

Interested candidates must submit their applications through the appropriate channels, along with a bio-data in the prescribed format. They must also include a certificate from their employer/head of office/forwarding authority, attested photocopies of their ACR/APAR dossier for the past five years, cadre clearance, integrity certificate/clearance from vigilance and disciplinary angle, and a statement of major or minor penalties imposed on them in the last ten years. The deadline for submitting applications is December 31, 2023.

Candidates called for the interview/personal interaction will not receive any travel allowance or daily allowance. They will be responsible for making their own arrangements in this regard.

The advertisement and application form can be downloaded from the Ministry of Railways’ website or the RCT’s website.

It is important to adhere to the deadlines and include all necessary annexures for the application to be considered. Any applications received after the due date or without the required documents will not be entertained. Correspondence regarding such applications will also not be entertained.

The decision of the selection committee regarding the final selection will be considered final. Candidates should be aware that violating any of the mentioned conditions may result in being debarred from consideration for appointment outside the cadre and in any Autonomous Body/Regulatory Body for a period of three years.

Selected candidates must join within 30 days from the date of issue of the appointment order.

In summary, the Indian Railways is seeking qualified individuals with experience in commercial and claims matters to fill the vacancies for the position of Technical Member in the Railway Claims Tribunal. Interested applicants must submit their applications along with the required documents by the specified deadline. The selection process will be conducted by the Search-Cum-Selection Committee, and the final selection will be based on an overall evaluation.

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) is a statutory authority established under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act., 1987.

The RCT has its headquarters in Delhi and 23 regional Benches located at 21 different locations.

The RCT is inviting applications for the post of Technical Member, with 14 posts available in various locations across India.

The selection for the post will be done by a Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) based on qualification, experience, and personal interaction.

The selected candidate will be governed by the provisions of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021/Tribunals Reforms Act., 2021.

Indian Railways Experience in Claims Matters – Technical Member Selection

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) is a statutory authority established under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act., 1987.

The RCT has its headquarters in Delhi and 23 regional Benches located at 21 different locations.

The RCT is inviting applications for the post of Technical Member, with 14 posts available in various locations across India.

The selection for the post will be done by a Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) based on qualification, experience, and personal interaction.

The selected candidate will be governed by the provisions of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021/Tribunals Reforms Act., 2021.

Responsibilities of a Technical Member in Railway Claims Tribunal

Technical Members are responsible for hearing various cases/appeals under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act., 1987.

They evaluate claims related to passenger/goods traffic on Indian Railways.

Technical Members require experience and expertise in commercial and claims matters.

Vacancy Circular – Locations of Technical Member Posts

There are 14 vacancies for Technical Members in Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT).

Locations include Ernakulam, Lucknow, Chandigarh, Bhubaneswar, Guwahati, Ranchi, Ahmedabad, Bhopal, Jaipur, Secunderabad, Delhi, and Mumbai.

The number of posts and locations may change based on availability and administrative requirements.

Qualification and Eligibility for Technical Member

Candidates must meet the qualification, eligibility, salary, and other terms and conditions specified in the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021/Tribunals Reforms Act., 2021.

The closing date for the vacancy notice will be considered for reckoning these conditions.

Violation of any conditions may result in debarment from appointment outside the cadre and in any Autonomous Body/Regulatory Body.

Selection Process for Technical Member

The Search-Cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) will evaluate applications based on qualification and experience.

Shortlisted candidates will undergo a personal interaction round.

The final selection will be based on an overall evaluation of candidates by the SCSC.

Application Procedure for Technical Member

Eligible candidates should submit their applications through proper channels.

Applications should include a bio-data in the prescribed pro-forma, certificates, clear photocopies of ACR/APAR dossier, cadre clearance, integrity certificate, and vigilance clearance.

The complete application should reach the designated address by 31st December, 2023.

Important Information for Applicants

No major or minor penalty should have been imposed on the candidate during the last ten years.

Candidates should not withdraw their candidature after the selection committee meeting.

If selected, candidates should join within 30 days from the date of issue of the appointment order.

Visual Appeal Slide [Optional]

Include an image or graph related to Indian Railways or the Railway Claims Tribunal to enhance visual appeal and engagement.

Indian Railways Experience in Claims Matters – Technical Member Selection

The Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) is seeking Technical Members with experience in commercial and claims matters.

14 vacancies are available nationwide, with various locations across India.

The selection process involves evaluating qualifications, experience, personal interaction, and overall assessment.

Join Indian Railways and contribute to the resolution of claims related to passenger/goods traffic.

Apply now and be a part of the Indian Railways experience in claims matters!

[beardedmrbean]

California’s largest daily newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, announced on Tuesday that it is laying off at least 115 people -roughly a quarter of its staff- as it continues to hemorrhage money.

The layoffs were announced in a newsroom-wide email from L.A. Times president and Chief Operating Officer Chris Argentieri, according to reporter Matt Pearce.

“This total, while devastating, is nonetheless far lower than the total number of Guild layoffs initially expected last week,” Pearce posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Last Friday, members of the Los Angeles Times Guild, the union representing newspaper staffers, staged a one-day walkout to protest the anticipated job cuts.

“Slashing a quarter of the newsroom is devastating by any measure – to our members and their families, to our morale, to the quality of our journalism, to the bond with our audience, and to the communities that depend on our work,” the Guild said in a statement. “We believe our decision to go on strike saved scores of newsroom jobs today.”

Tuesday’s layoffs come after the paper slashed 74 positions in July, the union said.

In an article published in the L.A. Times on Tuesday, the newspaper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, said the cuts were needed to account for losses totaling $30 million to $40 million a year due to declining subscriptions and advertising revenue.

“Today’s decision is painful for all, but it is imperative that we act urgently and take steps to build a sustainable and thriving paper for the next generation. We are committed to doing so,” Soon-Shiong said.

Among the senior editors laid off were the paper’s Washington bureau chief and deputy Washington bureau chief, its business editor and music editor.

L.A. Times video game industry reporter Sarah Parvini was also let go.

“It’s been an honor to work at the paper for nearly a decade, launching a video game beat, helping to win Pulitzers, covering diverse communities. To my colleagues, [the L.A. Times Guild], readers: Thank you,” Parvini tweeted.

Soon-Shiong and his family purchased the L.A. Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune from Tribune Publishing for $500 million in 2018.

Layoffs and buyouts have hit a wide swath of the news industry over the past year. The Washington Post, NPR, CNN and Vox Media are among the many companies hit.

An estimated 2,681 news industry jobs were lost through the end of November, according to the employment firm of Challenger, Gray and Christmas. That was more than the full years of 2022 and 2021.

[my-vanishing-777]

The chief executive of a sexual assault support service has stood down after a review found it failed to protect women-only spaces.

Mridul Wadhwa – a trans woman – resigned after a Rape Crisis Scotland report found she failed to behave professionally while head of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

The investigation, carried out by an independent consultant, also found Ms Wadhwa “did not understand the limits of her authority” and the needs of survivors were not prioritised.

In a statement, the ERCC board said it was implementing recommendations from the review, but felt the “time was right for a change of leadership”.

The review was sparked after an employment tribunal found a counsellor with gender-critical views had been unfairly constructively dismissed.

Former worker Roz Adams believed that those using the service should be able to know the sex of the staff that deal with their case.

The charity has paused new referrals to the centre and said it was "extremely concerned" that women-only spaces had not been provided for 16 months.

An ERCC statement said: "Mridul has stood down from her role as CEO of ERCC. Recruitment of a new CEO will happen in due course.

"We are committed to delivering excellence while taking on board the recommendations from the independent review to ensure we place survivors voices at the heart of our strategy.

"We are in daily communication with Rape Crisis Scotland, have met their urgent demands, and are currently implementing the recommendations in the report.

"We will continue to work alongside RCS to ensure our services not only meet but exceed the National Service Standards."

However, For Women Scotland - which has campaigned against changes to transgender rights - accused the board of "ignoring its own culpability".

In a statement posted on X, they said: "This is the very least that they can do. It seems the board are intent on ignoring their own culpability.

"It's not good enough.

"They, and Rape Crisis Scotland, are making a sacrifice. But they created the problem."

Ms Adams' tribunal, which concluded in May, centred on a disciplinary process that began after she repeatedly sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.

Some people who do not consider themselves to have a solely male or female gender identity describe themselves as non-binary.

Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they received support from on the basis of sex, and that sex was binary and "everyone is either male or female at that level".

The tribunal found that an investigation into Ms Adams' conduct should not have been launched and “was clearly motivated by a strong belief amongst the senior management and some of the claimant’s colleagues that the claimant’s views were inherently hateful".

Ms Wadhwa was highlighted in the outcome of the case as she appeared to believe that Ms Adams was transphobic.

It said Ms Wadhwa was “the invisible hand behind everything that had taken place.”

The review into the charity, which was published on Thursday, also concluded that Ms Wadhwa “did not understand the limits on her role’s authority”.

Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place - a women-only support service for victims of sexual violence, funded by JK Rowling.

This included a strategy "which did not put survivors first" and a failure to protect women-only spaces.

In its recommendations, the review said the Edinburgh centre should take advice from Rape Crisis Scotland on the definition of "woman" and publicise this within the service.

Women-only spaces and times "must be protected and clearly publicised", it said.

But the review also acknowledged it continued to "deliver high quality services to a significant number of people".