Here are some tweets from Nick Wallis' lunchbreak with the bundle
But before I do I just want to set out what is going on as I'm not sure it's clear. In fact if I hadn't interviewed SP before the trial started everything would be as clear as mud and given we're not going to be given any paperwork because of the idiosyncracies of the scottish
tribunal system it's like wading through treacle. I'm going to try to make this my last moan about the legal system today, but how on earth is the public meant to understand what is going on in these courts if we are not allowed to be given
any of the underlying documents which are being discussed. There's no reason not to be given them (certainly not versions redacted for GDPR) other than a latent distaste within the justice system for open justice.
Anyway - I am now sitting with the bundle being watched by a nice lady who is presumably here to stop me doing whatever I'm not meant to be doing.
Oh yes - the case. As i understand it - SP made a claim against NHS Fife and DU for discriminating against her when she objected to DU being in the F CR. When the handling of the disc investigation and "misgendering" charge came along it was thought there might be a...
... second claim against NHS Fife (this might still be live). SP thought RCN should fund this secondary claim and the reason given at the time was that it was an entirely separate claim and folding it into the initial claim would delay it. So...
RCN could/should fund the secondary claim against NHS Fife for allegedly ballsing up the investigation against SP whilst SP and MG and could focus on the initial claim. RCN refused.
They say this is their prerogative for technical reasons which I am sure will get explained in court but might be something to do with SP already getting legal advice about the same matter.
SP says it's because of her sex realist beliefs and that is why RCN are discriminating against her.
Okay so to the bundle - first up - the mysterious letter which the RCN claims to have sent (by email), but which SP says she never received. This is dated 8 Jan 2024 and says to SP "we have opened a case file in your name"...
this is clearly a potential legal case as whilst it is from SF, it references the RCN's legal person Gillian Tait as "supervising this". It asks Peggie if she has any protected characterisitcs (including "sex"). Then is goes on to say...
"In some member cases we may incur costs on your behalf, both in terms of RCN staff time and payments made to experts to advise and verify your claim. We shall pay these costs so long as we continue to represent you...
... Consistent with other Trades Unions and limits set by the courts themselves, there is a set minimum value certain types of claims need to reach before we are able to pursue them....
... if it becomes clear to the local RCN office that your claim has no reasonable prospect of success or you have been made an offer, we feel you should accept, but you wish to continue your claim, our agreement to indemnify you in respect of the above costs may be withdrawn. We may also withdraw our agreement if we feel you are making unreasonable demands on RCN services. These decisions rest with the local RCN office.
If we believe that your case requires a claim to an employment tribunal, we will make a referral for you to RCN legal services to assess whether your case has reasonable prospects of success and meets our minimum value threshold. We will be clear with you around that. If we agreed to support an employment tribunal claim on your behalf, this will involve the ACAW early conciliation process. If we do not agree to support your potential claim, then unfortunately, we will not be able to represent you during early conciliation. We will advise you of the RCN legal services decision as soon as we are able. Further information about early conciliation and time limits can be found on our online advice page: Employment tribunals and the courts.
The RCN has professional indemnity insurance that covers RCN staff and representatives in the event that we are careless in PRO providing you with the service, causing you financial loss."
So it's all very clear here that the RCN is gearing up for a fight on Peggie's behalf. The evidence so far was that this letter was sent to the wrong address and therefore not received by Peggie - whether it might have been deliberately sent to the wrong address or even
something more sinister simply is not known. The q as to whether it might have landed in SP's spam was asked this morning, but she couldn't answer.
Okay this is from MG's attendance note to a meeting with NP on 13 Feb 2024 p334 of the bundle:
"MG on attending Norman Provan of the RCN. Providing Norman with background information in relation to my clients case. Norman seems sympathetic to my client's plight and said he would send relevant policy documents in relation to rules regarding suspension. I advised Norman that my Firm view was that there was an industrial strategic role for the trade union to perform here not withstanding the fact that legal support is not being provided. I told him that a legal claim was likely to be raised. Norman confirmed that the union would continue to represent Sandy and he confirmed that Stuart Fraser is a full-time officer."
Sandy Peggie and NHS five brackets (R1) and Dr Beth Upton (R2) case number 4104864/2024.
I refer to previous correspondence in connection with the above case and write with reference to the ongoing disciplinary investigation. There is a matter which is pertinent to the investigation and which my client is so far not disclosed to R1 or her union because it is one which causes her distress.
It had been my client's intention to share this information at the meeting on the 10th of May 2024, but she did not do so. I now, however, have my client's instructions to disclose this information to R1 and the RCN for the purposes of the ongoing investigation.
My client felt that she had no choice to inform her to how uncomfortable she was with R2's presence in the female only work changing rooms on the 24th/25th of December 2023 because it was apparent to her that R1 was unwilling to act on the concerns she had previously raised regarding men being allowed access to female only spaces.
One of the reasons my client is so uncomfortable about having to share a changing room with males is because on or about 1998, when she was aged 17, she was sexually assaulted on several occasions by her GP.
My client never told anyone about these sexual assaults and only disclose them for the first time around 20 years later to friends. To be clear the basis of my client's legal claims is that mentioned should not be permitted to access single sex basis for the reasons contained in the ET one.
However, it is felt important to explain the extent of my clients discomfort about R2's presence for the purposes of the ongoing investigation. Can you please confirm that it will prompt forward this email in confidence to disciplinary investigation officer?
The RCN has also been copied into this email as they continued to represent my client in the ongoing disciplinary process.
Thank you very much for your assistance."
This is the email from NP to SF on 20 Jan 2025 telling SF the RCN is not going to fund SP's case. p408 of the bundle:
"Hi Stuart
I have reviewed this request. There are a number of issues which are problematic in relation to the RCN providing legal support in this instance.
The issue is inextricably linked to her already scheduled employment tribunal. In her email, Sandie's solicitor states that they want the RCN to raise this as a separate ET as it is too late to add it to the existing case which is scheduled to be heard in February.
Although I accept it will be inconvenient to reschedule her employment tribunal to allow time for this new element to be added, doing so feels like a logical action to ensure all linked elements of Sanie's [sic] case are Heard together.
In addition you will be aware that the RCN legal officer does not extend to covering issues on which a member has received legal advice from another party. It is clear from Margaret's email that Sandie has discussed this additional element with her solicitor and with Council [sic] on that basis it is not within my discretion to go beyond our legal offer and offer legal support in this case.
Can you therefore go back to the member and advise that we cannot provide legal support in this case. It will of course be important that you advise of the time bar issues which are in place and suggest that Sandie should discuss with a legal representatives either postponing her scheduled ET to allow this additional element to be added or alternatively for her current legal provider to raise the second action separately on her behalf as they suggested we might ddo [sic]
Rregards.
Norman Provan"
Okay last one I've got time to do before we call go back in for the afternoon session. This is the notes by SF of his call with SP on either 5 or 8 Jan 2024. I will ignore the spelling:
"called to member to discuss situation, member described that new doctor has started and they are a trans female and this has made members of staff uncomfortable as they are using the female changing area, member had discussed her discomfort with this, with her Line manager however nothing was done, member was in a level of discomfort due to bleeding and the DR was in the changing room, the member advised the DR that she did not think that she should be in there and said something along the lines of this is the same as when they put a man in a female prison, discussed with the member of the potential that this could be seen as discriminatory and is most likely what has caused the suspension. Discussed with member process of investigation and potential outcomes, et cetera advised will open case."