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

Saying SP engaged a solicitor before the RCN could get their act together.

Perhaps his point is that by the time RCN could be expected to understand that this was a case relating to GC belief, Sandie already had representation, so they were entitled to breathe a sigh of relief and ignore it?

From TT:

SP yes
DH you've asked her to liaise with NHS Fife on your behalf and raising legal proceedings in on the agenda by 5 Feb 2024
SP yes
DH - initial work being funded by SM, and says of significant strategic importance, it seems to me that this is SM strategy, not particular

to you.
SP yes
DH did you know what that strategy was?
SP after speaking with MF about the case, she said she thought I had a legal case because of my beliefs, she passed this on to MG
DH a few questions about convos with SF, but need to ask about MG emails were you asked to

I keep accidentally reading “DH” as “dear husband” in my head.

From TT:

approve all emails and correspondence.
SP she asked me to look at everything
DH I thought it might be just more substantial but you're saying you were more involved
SP yes
DH you would have seen the ET1 and the amendments would have been sent to you
SP yes

DH a substantial email to NHS Fife before first claim was raised....don't need to take you through details, its a substantial email, gives intonation of a potential claim, was this shared with you,
SP yes
DH in addition, there are occasions where MG sent letters via email,

ooo er so defence is that Sandie is a pawn in a battle coordinated by the witches coven. LOL

They were using it to describe the continuous pushback and vocal opposition that any attempt to implement the guidance received.

From TT:

including to NP, and David Miller of NHS Fife, and I presume the purpose of you being shown correspondence is so that you are happy with it going out
SP yes
DH winding back if I may to discussion with SF, 5 or 8 of Jan 2024, phone call from SF to you, you had contacted RCN on

about 30 December
SP yes
DH SF I think will tell us that the notes he took of a convo with you, a fairly succinct para there, speaking to you for about 40 minutes is that right
SP doesn't feel as long as 40 minutes
DH parties have landed on agreement that call took place on

5 or 8 Jan. Your claim form says earlier, 30, 31 of Dec was that a mistake
SP yes, it was a mistake
DH you said notes were accurate is that right
SP what is missing, I asked SF if he had dealt with any cases like this before
DH do you remember the answer

From TT:

SP quite noncommittal, don't think he would have told me about any cases he was doing, I was just after a yes or no answer
[repeated as coughing in room]
DH in the notes, some discussion, you told SF some of the words you had used, and some that DU had used, that's right, you're

nodding, and you mentioned that you had told DU that it was like putting a man in a woman's prison - is that right
SP yes
DH was that a ref to Isla Bryson
SP yes
DH SF said, mentioned to member might be discriminatory and why suspended

These tribunals are bad for my health. My tobacco and unhealthy snacks consumption increases dramatically!

I'm finding this man annoying.

I have finished the bar of chocolate which I was expecting to last me another week.

Foran commented on this, likely that the real reason RCN did not want to be associated with this case, real reason for refusal to represent her in the second case, yet to be heard was not wanting to associate with this because of institutional belief re GI ideology

From TT:

SP yes
DH I think SF will say he was not being judgmental,
SP I don't think he was being judgemental but he also wasn't agreeing that DU shouldn't use female CR
DH he was offering his opinion as to why this process had started
SP but I felt unsupported and I had been

discriminated against.
DH that's a feeling that you are articulating now, SF will say that you didn't say you had been discriminated against on that call
SP yes
DH broad sweep - discussed process and potential outcomes, he attempted to summarise what it might look like

The point is it is for the union not SP to decide what her rights were. They did not do that.

Is Sandie supposed to have a law degree before she goes to her union? Surely the union is used to dealing with upset staff who think they've been wronged. Regardless of what sodding words they used.

From TT:

and what might follow afterwards. Do you recollect that
SP yes
DH he would generally explain the process involving an ix phase, and that's your opportunity to respond
SP don't remember him mentioning a right to reply but it should take 4-6 weeks

DH just the ix phase
SP yes
DH he was managing your expectations that it might be a lengthy process, is that your recollection
SP I wouldn't know how long the process would take, I've never been involved before
DH about the suspension, that it wasn't disciplinary in nature

From TT:

do you recall that
SP no, only that it would take 4-6 weeks
DH he will say that he told you after he had more info he might be bettern able to help you, do you recall that
SP he might have said, I don't recall
DH did he give you a confidential point of contact

SP not at RCN, I had one at Fife
DH he would usually say he would touch base at least once a month, do you recall
SP no, but he did call me
DH I suggest that you didn't say anything to SF about looking for legal assistance, would you accept that
SP yes

Well the suspension was considered an Act of harassment was it not?

From TT:

DH an email that attached the letter that indicates that the RCN has opened the case, you have no recollection of receiving this email
SP that's correct
DH do we see on page 322, the heading of this letter in bold face, re your case, the same number in the subject heading as in

the 'to' line.

SP yes
DH I suggest that it would be your membership number, and it includes your email address, did you take any steps to see if this found it's way to your junk mail
SP I've got no idea
DH do I take it you didn't take any steps to explore what

From TT:

legal assistance the RCN might offer, via it's website for example
SP SF didn't mention, so I didn't explore
DH he called you on 5 Feb 2024,
SP don't remember the date
DH he emailed you, and we see your reply, and you've had a letter confirming your suspension, and contact

with your MP - you were in contact with MG by then
SP yes
DH do you think this was the opportunity to express any concerns with the RCN service
SP he hadn't mentioned legal advice in our call
DH you don't say anything about having lost faith in SF in this response

So far I'm getting "Nothing to do with us. Sandie didn't utter certain magic words in a specific order so we were perfectly entitled to treat her like shit."

😂

From TT:

SP I accept that
DH and you don't mention that others are telling you that there is a legal case
SP no I didn't
DH there was talk of legal proceedings by 5 Feb,
SP yes
DH by 13th Feb looks like a certainty of a legal claim, that was then done, and ACAS certificate launched

DH there's no suggestion in MG emails of 5, 13 Feb that she was asking for assistance in the legal claim, do you accept that
SP yes
DH you met SF before suspension meeting and then a debrief after
SP yes
DH another opportunity for you to raise any concerns with SF