Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #62

According to the article in the Times, "Peggie’s claim hinges on the alleged failure of her union to advise her that she had legitimate grounds for a legal claim against her employer while she was suspended, and the RCN’s refusal to provide formal legal assistance when she made a secondary claim against NHS Fife over their handling of her disciplinary case."

The article does not say the union failed to support her at all. It says that their support was inadequate and that they should have told her she had a potential legal case and referred the matter to RCN's legal services.

Note that RCN specifically state that they do not normally support members in investigatory meetings.

If, as it seems from the article in the Times, the case is about the union failing to advise her she had grounds for a claim and failing to provide legal assistance, it is all about legal support.

It may be that the hearings this week will tell a different story, but if the Times is correct, I'm afraid you are wrong.

Given @prh47bridge 's clarification, I'm wondering why Peggie's team chose to bring the case based on this narrower alleged failure - i.e. to provide support in relation to possible legal action.

Even if they wouldn't normally attend investigatory meetings, there must surely have been at least some non-legally-related forms of support that one might routinely have expected them to provide in response to Peggie's request for their intervention?

Things like writing to the Trust to ask them to provide evidence of proper process having been followed before developing/implementing a policy allowing TIMs into women's facilities - e.g. consultation, impact assessments - and/or simply monitoring the process to which Peggie was being subjected to make sure that was correctly handled?

There must be a reason for focussing on the alleged failure to provide proper legal support, rather than these other, more routine, preliminary forms of support?

I'm only going on what is in the Times article. As far as I am aware none of the papers have been published, so we will find out what grounds she is going on in the hearing.

I don't think we really know exactly what support they did or did not provide, other than the fact that they clearly did not provide legal support. The lack of legal support is clear. If there was no other support, that is also clear. However, if there was support, arguments about the quality of that support are harder to win - not impossible but harder than if there was no support at all.

I seem to recall in earlier interviews that the union refused to provide any support information or guidance whatsoever.

i checked with my daughter who is a nurse, and via their website. They do offer support to a fully paid up member facing a disciplinary hearing. This includes helping write a statement, and representation through any process, ensuring the employer follows their own policy and procedure etc.

I also checked TUC as well. It is a fundamental tenet that trade unions will represent employees in all manner of disputes, that is why they have, shop stewards and accredited officers.

As far as this case is concerned it would be a very narrow argument indeed to focus just on failure to give legal advice.

i suspect the times is reporting is inaccurate.

Has anyone had the link and pin email yet for tomorrow?

I think the RCN, and a number of other unions, have a policy that they will not support members accused of transphobia, racism etc in any way so there would have been no support as a matter of principle/official policy.

They cannot do that it is not for the union to determine guilt or innocence of a member.

Not yet I seem to remember that the link was sent out on the first morning last time.

I'm not saying its right or that I support it, but I think it is there - and agree this assumes that a member is guilty if they are accused of particular activities only and it also curtails free expression of legally held views.

from Nick Wallis substack.

https://nickwallis.substack.com/p/peggie-v-rcn-i-want-this-to-be-a?publication_id=3399933&post_id=216903850&isFreemail=true&r=4p2qy&triedRedirect=true

Today’s Dundee Courier
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/5555624/nhs-fife-sandie-peggie-case-trade-union/

Yay I have online access

Me too! I should be able to c&p from TT tomorrow, as well, if that job isn't already allocated.

Me too.

I have my link - happy to help with C&P from TT if needed!

Me too 👀

Got access too. 😁

Fair play to them too, the guidance notes on how to join are very clear.

Me too. We are to join 30 minutes prior to start. Is the hearing starting at 10:00?

I applied on 4th Sept as soon as they replied to my earlier email by sending the Operational Note. My confirmation arrived at 16.55 today. Hope everyone else who applied got a place too.

Usually they start with Case Management but I was planning to check from 9am just in case.

I have online access, hopefully everyone will put cameras and microphones off we'll be spared a randomn topless man showing off his belly I saw in one ET

Is anyone listening to the Michael Foran podcast on this? Supposed to start at 6 tonight

I also have my log on details. Is it wrong to say I'm looking forward? to this?