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

From TT:

on how to proceed.
SP yes
DH and some of that advice was tactical advice on how to approach the new allegations,
SP yes
DH and it was to use the new allegations to show the process was tainted
SP yes
DH you rec'd advice on that ?

SP only that was the potential for another claim
DH I was talking about the d/x process, a tactical decision not to split the d/x process for new allegation
SP yes, that's right
DH and presumably discussion with MG and maybe counsel, I'm not asking you to divulge advice, but

Wasn't that a single example of a 'joke', which Sandie Peggie received and forwarded on Facebook(?) and has since said she regrets and would not do again?

From Nick Wallis

... that there was contact between MG and SF and some of that was for MG asking for SF's notes which he duly did provide
SP yes
DH and some corr about the investigatory invite letter which was provided by SF
SP yes
And in addition to that MG was also suggesting ways SF might conduct this meetings
SP I don't remember that
DH look at p358 - this is an email from MG to SF and NP - starts at the foot of the page - MG setting out her thoughts in respect of the allegations and her concerns...
... if we look at p359 and we see at later points - eg p370 - another email 26 Aug 2024 - we can see MG giving a strong suggestion as to what should or should not be disclosed in respect of a certain matter - you accept she's having an input and hoping SF will do certain things?
SP yes
DH that takes us to a point where the IM was taking place. The allegations formulated against you and certain of those allegations are developed - that is the context which leads to the second claim.
And we see there's quite the detailed email from MG on this on p400. and we can see here the email begins o p400 7 Sep 2024 - another strong suggestion from MG to SF as to how the disc process...

... should be approached in respect of the new allegation [which I think, from memory was "misgendering" DU]
SP yes
DH and on p401 second par we can see MG setting out certain views in respect of potential further claims. And that you've been given advice in that respect by...
23 Dec 2024 and that advice came from both MG and your counsel [NC]?
SP yes
DH now we are going to turn to the aspect and events surrounding the second claim. This arose from a new allegation about you misgendering DU and that was included as an amendment to the existing third allegation against you which was being investigated.

SP yes
DH and this was about things you yourself had said during the investigatory process
SP yes
DH and I think we can see as part of this disco at the bottom of p400 was that this new allegation was being included in the ongoing disc process which began with your suspension
at the start of the year.
SP yes
DH and we can see that a view is reached and you have given instructions as to how that should be approached within the disc process itself
SP yes

DH I take it therefore you had a meeting with MG and poss NC to discuss how to approach this matter
SP yes
DH and this included advice about instructions you were going to give MG about how you should proceed.
SP yes
DH and by Dec 2024 this included "tactical" advice on how to approach the new allegation
SP yes
DH which was to keep it in the original investigation with the poss of you using it to show the inv was tainted
SP yes

DH so at this stage certainly there was a tactical decision taken that you didn't want to split up the disc process
SP yes
DH and then there would have been a disco between you and MG and potentially NC and I presume you would have been given advice about potential legal claims...
around this new allegations
SP yes
DH from both NC and MG
SP MG
DH I presume you would have received advice from NC and mG as at 23 Dec 2024 on what their view were about potential legal claims
SP not views - just that there could be a second legal claim

DH as broad as that
SP yes
DH look at p401 - the highlighted par on email of 23 Dec - from MG to SF - this is re the new allegation - I have advised Sandie that counsel and I are of the view that this is a discrimination case here [he reads] - take a moment to read it all

It was entirely irrelevant.

I'm a brownish immigrant and I still think that even racists (whether or not SP is one) have sex-based rights.

Exactly so.

From TT:

there was advice given to you about legal claims.

SP yes,
DH from MG but also counsel
SP yes, from MG but she had talked with counsel
NC - I think that's crossing the line into asking about the advice
DH I've forgotten the question, oh, did you get advice from MG & NC

SP but only that there might be a further claim
DH from MG email 'I have advised SP that there is grounds for a further claim', a couple of questions on that para, please take a moment to read
[SP reading]
DH it appears that by 23 Dec you had advice from MG & NC in respect of

From TT:

legal claims arising from additional allegation
SP yes
DH separate from claims in ET
SP yes
DH some discussion about how to approach? A new ET application will need to be raised, impact of raising new separate claims on existing claim

SP yes
DH thats why existing claim was not amended
SP yes
DH so tactical discussion about how to take claims forward
SP yes
DH there's quite a bit more advice than just a general 'you may have a claim' do you accept that
SP yes

exactly. The law applies equally to all ppl - nice ones, nasty ones, smart
ones, catastrophically stupid ones.

i can't see why TRA parrot out the line that essentially says only ppl we like and agree with should have rights. Are they really to stupid to see where that ends up?

From TT:

DH by this stage, this email is the start of the consideration of RCN providing legal assistance on 2nd claim,
SP yes
DH correspondence from MG from before Christmas through early Jan, with the RCN, seeking legal assistance from RCN. By that stage you had been receiving advice

from MG & NC for 10 months and you were happy with that advice
SP yes
DH RCN advice is advice offered by them, using solicitors they instruct, had you anticipated that?
SP yes
DH and did you appreciate that as part of that those solicitors might be looking at an allegation

NC was precise and to the point.

DH is not showing these qualities, he's trying to get her to agree to something in RCN's favour and is wandering around various issues in hopes that she will.

Just a reminder not to engage with interrupting wreckers.

From TT:

within the same d/x process you were challenging in your first claim.
SP yes, I did
DH second set of solicitors might have to form an opinion on the merits of the case, were you aware of that
SP yes, but MG was giving them all the info

DH it's not so much about the info, but another set of solicitors might have a different opinion on legal strategy, the strength of a case, did you think about that
SP no
DH if they did think there was a claim to raise, it would be raised by the RCN solicitors, did you appreciate

Absolutely. But let's not pretend she's a decent human being. She's thoroughly grotty.

And completely skirting around the fact that a union member had brought a serious issue to them that effects a large number of their members and they were like, meh...

Shush! We’re talking.

Oh bore off

He's being very waffly and going round the houses.

Why is the other side always a good cure for insomnia?

From TT:

that.
SP yes
DH in the scenario that RCN solicitors are raising and pursuing 2nd claim, I presume you would want to keep existing solicitor for first claim.
SP yes
DH no suggestion that you would be looking to change solicitor if RCN provided legal assistance

SP if RCN had provided assistance I would have taken it
DH on second claim?
SP yes
DH but wouldn't that leave you with one claim on a d/x with first solicitors, and a second claim on the same d/x with a different set, weren't you just hoping for some funding from RCN

Long may he continue to be boring and of no consequence. I've just got to nip out for half an hour and don't want to miss any key bits.

From Nick Wallis

DH so it appears from this comm of 23 Dec 2024 you had received advice from MG and NC in respect of legal claims arising from the additional allegation - accept that?
SP yes
DH and that advice included raising them as separate claims within the ET
SP yes
DH and it goes into some detail about how this would be done - so some consideration being done to the impact of raising a new claim on the existing claim
SP yes
DH and that presumably is why there was no attempt to amend the existing claim, but to raise them as a separate matter
SP yes
DH so there must have been a tactical disco as to how best to approach and litigate these new allegations
SP yes
DH so this goes beyond general advice you might have a claim - do you accept that
SP yes

DH this email is the start of the request for the RCN providing legal advice in respect of the second claim - you understood that
SP yes
DH this was shortly before xmas - it goes on into early Jan and NP makes a decision on 17 Jan 2025...
... but it's in the minds of yourself and your legal advisors that RCN should provide legal advice. And by that stage you'd been getting advice and service from MG and NC
SP yes
DH for 10 months and I presume you were happy with the advice they were and are giving
SP yes

DH legal advice from RCN potentially involved the RCN instructing different solicitors - had you thought about that
SP yes
DH did you appreciate those solicitors might be looking at areas of the initial disc process you might be challenging in your first claim?
SP "I accept that yes"
DH did you appreciate they might have to do their own assessment of the merits of the case
SP I'd be happy to give them the info
DH it's more to do with the legal analysis and legal opinion - they had to asses the case - had you give any thought to that
SP no
DH and if they thought you did have a claim. the expectation would be that the claim would be pursued by the RCN solicitors. Had you appreciated that?
SP yes
DH in that scenario that RCN solicitors are raising and pursuing your second claim - I presume you'd still be wanting to keep your existing solicitor for your first claim
SP yes

DH so there was never any expectation the RCN's sols would take over
SP it was to do with the time frame of my first claim
DH would that not leave you in a situation where you have one claim pursued by your current sol and another relating to the same disc process pursued by

different sols
SP [indistinct]
DH was the intention that they would just provide funding
SP I was hoping that the RCN as it was still my union would provide legal input for my second claim
DH the decision was made not to provide you with legal advice. This was relayed to MG by SF on 20 Jan 2025. Presume you would have been told about that
SP MG told me about that.

DH SF won't disagree with MG's file not of that convo on p410 and part of that file note is MG asking SF to put that decision in writing to you
SP yes
DH now your claim form has suggested no reasons were provided until 24 Feb 2025 by NP
... you were however by NC taken to the email chain on p408. We can see there is an email to you from SF on 20 Jan 2025 - he is forwarding an email from NP to SF from 17 Jan in which NP sets out his reasons for the RCN not providing legal support in this case

From TT:

SP I was hoping for legal assistance with my claim
DH a decision by RCN not to offer legal assistance, MG was told by SF, how did you find out
SP MG told me
DH, SF won't disagree with MG file note on that convo, part of that file note is MG is for them to put decision in writing

SP yes
DH your claim form says no reasons provided until later, but let's look at the email chain on 408....we can see here that there's an email from SF to you Jan 2025, with an email below from NP on 17th Jan, forwarded, sets out NP reasons for not providing legal support

From TT:

SP yes
DH you said you found this in your junk mail in August 2025
SP yes
DH do you accept that SF had provided you with written rationale for why your request for legal support had been refused
SP yes

DH there's an email that you send to NP on 3 March 2025, this email is the first time where you say in words that the RCN has failed you from the outset. I would suggest that this is the first time you say that RCN has failed your from outset, would you accept that
SP yes

grrr she's not a bloody lawyer, she's a nurse!

DH but wouldn't that leave you with one claim on a d/x with first solicitors, and a second claim on the same d/x with a different set, weren't you just hoping for some funding from RCN

Isn't that why people join a union? To get legal help when required without having to pay for it?