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

Yes, me too. As opposed to actually supporting a member of their union.

They should have referred up for legal advice straight away, and as per Foran the RCN were asked to approach the NHS, re work place regs and sandies rights to single sex facilities which they did not do.

Since this is going quite slowly here's a catchup of Nick Wallis' livetweeting too - no promises of doing this systematically!

DH you say SF's notes don't tell the fullness of what you spoke about. What's missing
SP "what's missing is i had asked SF if he had ever dealt with any cases like this before"
DH do you remember what the answer was?
SP "he was quite non-committal - I don't think he would have told me about any cases he had been doing. I was just after a yes or no answer"
DH there was also a disco between you and SF about some of the words you used and DU used in your confrontation before xmas - along the lines of
"this is the same as when they put a man in a female prison" and you mentioned you'd said something similar
DH was that a ref to a rather notorious prisoner called Isla Bryson?
SP yes
DH and it was mentioned that this might discriminatory be why you have been suspended.
SP yes
DH I think SF will say he wasn't being judgmental when he said that
SP not judgmental. "I felt unsupported, mainly because I felt I had been discriminated against"
DH that's a feeling your articulating now - SF will likely say you didn't express that phrase in your call with him then - would you accept that?
SP yes
DH second half of the note re potential outcomes etc - he will tell us he attempted to summarise the process and what will happen after that - do you recall him doing that?
SP yes
DH I suspect SF will tell us it is almost standard practice to explain to you that there is an investigatory stage
SP can't remember him telling me I had a right of reply - just that it would take four to six weeks.
DH I expect SF will be his purpose in using words re the time of the stage would be to tell you it could be a relatively lengthy process
SP I wouldn't know how long a process would have taken - I've never been in that position before.
DH SF will explain suspension, purpose of and how it's not a sanction necessarily - do remember that?
SP can only remember him telling me it would take about 4 - 6 weeks.
DH SF recollects telling yo once he knew more he would be in a better position to advise and how to take it forwards
SP [no]
DH is it possible he could have said that
SP it's possible
DH did he say anything about a confidential point of contact
SP not from the RCN
DH but from the employer
SP yes
DH and he said he would stay in touch at least once a month
SP don't recollect that, but he did give me a call the next month
DH you did not say anything to SF about seeking legal assistance when you spoke on 5 - 8 Jan - would you accept that?
SP yes
DH you were taken to p321 in the bundle and I understand your position to be is that you have no recollection of receiving this email [which says a case...

Sorry i dont know if work place regs were mentioned but right to SS facilities.

Surely if the union were so unsure as to why Sandie was darkening their doorstep they could have tried a bit harder to understand the situation from her point of view and actually lay out her options for her?

From what I'm hearing I'm not getting the feeling that they did that?

From Nick Wallis

DH you looked in your junk mail in Aug 2025 - have you taken any steps to see if this email found its way int your junk mail?
SP I've got no idea
DH thinking about it at this time... do I take it you didn't take any steps yourself to look at the legal assistance the RCN offer on the RCN website for instance.
SP if SF had mentioned it I would have explored it.
DH on p330 you tell SF you have received a letter about the suspension and that you have been put in contact with your MP and other support services.
SP yes
DH was this an oppo also to raise any concerns with SF about his service provision to you?
SP I think the fact that he hadn't mentioned legal advice when I spoke to him and everybody else had mentioned it I think I'd lost faith
DH you don't say anything about losing faith when you make this response
SP I accept that
DH you don't say - well wait a minute - lots of other people are telling me I have a legal claim why didn't you do that - there's no mention of that at all
SP no
DH info about making a legal claim was sought in late Feb 2024 and MG's email on 5 Feb raises the prospect and then again on 13 Feb. On 13 Feb it looks like a certainty - MG saying a "legal claim will be intimated" to NHS Fife and that did happen. There's no suggestion in MG's
emails on 5 or 13 Feb that she was asking RCN's assistance in respect of the legal claim - do you accept that
SP yes
DH you met SF for the first time just before meeting your employer with a debrief after
SP yes
DH this would have been an oppo for you to raise it with him
SP he should have raised it with me like SM did.
DH but by the time of the review meeting legal action was in prospect and it would have been clear in your mind that was the case - would it not be something you would
raise with him
SP by that time I was taking advice from MG and I trusted her more than the RCN because they hadn't given me any legal advice
DH did you have any convo with SF about legal advice
SP no
DH SF thinks there may have had a convo after you had instructed MG as to whether the RCN could help with legal advice. do you remember that?
SP no
DH just on the suspension review meeting - "SF has no note and no recollection that during the SRM you expressed holding any GC or sex realist beliefs at that meeting. could that be right?"
SP possibly
DH just in respect of other support SF provided - he attended a pre investigatory meeting on 4 June and he attended the IM in Sep 2024. And we can see from email correspondence...

From TT:

SP I think it was something that SF should have offered to you, like MG, like SM
DH by this time it was clear that legal proceedings would be raised, and SF has had no part in assisting with, you didn't make any mention of the fact that he hadn't offered any legal assistance

SP at that point I was taking advice from MG and trusting her more than the RCN
DH any recollection of convos with SF about legal advice
SP no
DH he may say that there was a convo that the RCN might be able to provide you advice, do you recall that

SP no
DH it may have happened but you don't recall it
SP I do not remember it
DH during suspension meeting you didn't express GC or sex realist views, is that correct
SP - I don't remember, it may be
DH other support provided by SF, attended a pre ix meeting, June 2024,

Sandie does seem a bit calmer this time around, maybe cause she knows a bit more about what to expect.
When are the respondents witnesses being questioned?

She still seems nervous, which is understandable, but there's more I'm so sick of this shit in her demeanour.

From TT:

and attended ix meeting in Sept 2024, is that correct
SP yes he did
DH there was contact and communication between MG and SF,
SP yes
DH asking for notes, providing some correspondence, and copies of documents were provided do you accept that

SP yes
DH MG was also suggesting to SF how to conduct certain of these meetings...
SP I don't know
DH email from MG to SF, NP, setting out her thoughts on the allegations, certain concerns, and we see at later points, further email Aug 2024, MG giving strong suggestion to SF as

Why on earth does a woman need to say she has 'GC or sex realist beliefs' before her not wanting to be obliged by her employer to get undressed Infront of a man is taken seriously by her union?

Good grief.

For goodness sake so a solicitor had to try and get union engaged on Sandies behalf.

The Dundee Courier is providing live updates
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/5583352/sandie-peggie-tribunal-live-blog-trade-union/

Ah - rather the opposite then. Non-compliance, or at least going as far as possible to avoid doing so until absolutely forced to.

From TT:

to what should or should not be disclosed during the ix meeting. She's giving inputs and expecting SF to follow it.
SP yes
DH takes us to where the i/x meeting had taken place, allegations are formulated, certain matters taken forward.
SP yes
DH a detailed email from MG

We can see another strong suggestion to SF from MG as to how the d/x process should be approached in light of new allegation, can you see that
SP yes
DH further strong suggestions from MG, we can see MG setting out certain views in respect of potential further claims

Question is, are the magic words only necessary for those with SP’s particular PC or are all members required to utter them before receiving any assistance?

I think we all know the answer to that!!

How else would they know that she’d back down instantly, tug her forelock, and grovel at the pink and blue altar for the rest of her days??

I wonder how much racist conduct of Sandie's will be exposed in these proceedings.

From TT:

SP yes
DH you were given advice on this by Dec 2024, and based on the experience of both MG and your counsel (NC)
SP yes
DH a new allegation of misgendering DU, included as an amendment to existing 3rd allegation being investigated
SP yes

DH I understand that the misgendering had to do with things you had said in the ix meeting in August 2024.

SP yes
DH part of the discussion is that the new allegation was being inputted into the ongoing d/x process.
SP yes

DH we can see that a view is reached and you have given instructions as to how that should be dealt with in the disciplinary process
SP yes
DH you had a meeting with MG & NC on how to approach this matter
SP yes
DH meeting included advice so that you could give MG instructions

There is nothing being put forward here that gives any impression that RCN took what SP was saying seriously or that they understood the issue. Entirely the opposite imho.

Judge Kemp suggested women should disclose abuse history to gain the right to a single sex space.

I think they just wanted her to shut up and Fuck off