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

Oh, I didn't know that, I thought they could receive complaints.

How did they know.

Curious and curiouser.

I'm sure there will be a totally believable explanation 🙄

From Nick Wallis (you confused yet?)

DH two pars down GT is asking that staff can discuss single sex spaces without fear of consequences - that was your q1
SP yes
DH and further down we see she is asking that GC beliefs are acknowledged as protected
SP yes
DH you saw this email
SP yes
DH but there is no comms from you to GT saying you aren't happy with the terms in which she expressed your qs - you accept that
SP yes
DH so the only thing GT didn't do was to copy the email to all RCN members employed at NHS Fife.
SP yes
DH I asked if you hadn't comm'd with GT about her terms in the letter. You also didn't ask why she had not sent this to all RCN members
SP No [she's agreeing]

DH you're not a lawyer - I appreciate that - but is the action against GT that she did not copy her comms to all RCN members. Is that really what it comes to?
SP yes
DH just considering the report that you were getting from GT on this. GT expressed her own dissatisfaction with the responses she was getting from DM
SP I can't remember
DH well if you go to p472... we see an email at the bottom - GT on 21 Oct 2025

... in the second par GT says DM's response is "unhelpful" and that's an email to you directly. At p479 there's an email from GT on 14 Nov 2025 and this perhaps not an expression of dissatisfaction but an expression of an intention to continue to press DM. Do you accept that?
SP yes
DH and on p484 in Dec 2025 we can see GT in an email to you expressing her disagreement with DM's suggestion they should await the judgment of your first claim. and later on 15 Dec 2025 on p514 we can see in an email to you from GT in which GT says it is

"entirely unsatisfactory" not to have a resolution to this in terms of your return to work. "So GT was offering these views to you, keeping you in the loop and taking steps herself to receive assurances from DM - do you accept that"
SP yes
DH so when you said you didn't think the RCN wasn't doing anything "at all" that was not the case
SP "It wasn't right that I said "at all". I do believe that before GT took over from SF there hadn't been [indistinct]"

DH but your case is against the actions of GT who you will accept was doing something if not to your total satisfaction
SP yes
DH let's go to p513 which is your email response to GT's email on p484 - you make a request on 5 Dec 2025 for the RCN to make public crits of DM and FHB

From TT:

satisfaction.

SP yes
DH an email from you to GT, Dec 2025, make a request for RCN to make public its criticisms of DM & NHS Fife, you were asking for them to be public
SP yes
DH you say 'thank you for your assistance' perhaps a platitude, but you do include
SP yes

DH from this correspondence it might have been difficult for GT to understand you were unhappy with their assistance,
SP yes
DH they did not make public their criticisms as you had asked, GT explains why they have not made public the criticism. Do you accept that
SP yes

I'm so looking forward to the bit where it all falls apart when Naomi starts questioning the other sides witnesses, because you just know she's sitting on something that will make us having to listen to this man's constant waffling worth it.

From TT:

DH you may have spoken a bit loosely when you said GT was only in touch on 2 or 3 occasions to check in, there was substantially more than that to GT activities
SP yes
DH one final request to finish this chapter, the last request you make, is 15 Dec, email from you, you ask for

the RCN to organise for women members to come forward for a collective grievance for single sex services.
SP yes
DH GT did not do that, emailed you and told you why it had not been done, no other members come forward to raise the matter at NHS Fife. If they did, we could

take forward, if you're aware of any other members can you encourage them to come forward.
SP yes
DH they say that you haven't given them any steer about who to ask,
SP I would expect them to ask the female population of the hospital

Well I hope when she does we'll be able to hear her questions better than this chap's. My sound is awful.

From TT:

DH is that an acceptance that you yourself didn't give them any steer
SP that's right
DH only other questions are about 2 additional heads of claim against RCN, you raised the claim, first part in May 2025. At that time, it was only NP's refusal to provide legal advice

and then you amended it to include GT's conduct and SF actions/inactions
SP yes
DH you have had the benefit of specialist legal advice,
SP yes
DH it was clear in your mind as at Feb 2024 that you wanted to raise proceedings against NHS Fife
SP yes

I must be magic. They've just asked him to move his mic.
[wonders how to use these amazing new powers]

I honestly think they practice talking badly into microphones

Back in! Is the argument that although SF was dead loss, GT tried to be helpful so that cancels the dead loss out? And it's debatable how helpful GT actually was?

I don't know how she did it. How she was unafraid to be destroyed. She is an amazing woman. Again, I am not bashing anyone, but it is easier, I would suggest, for J.K.Rowling or E.Musk to stick up for the truth, not scared of being unemployable.

He's done with Sandie, but NC wants a quick break to speak to her.

From TT:

DH so at that point you knew that SF did not make you aware or help you with raising proceedings against NHS Fife
SP yes
DH you would have been aware of tight timelines for raising claims...
[Judge gets a note, instructs DH to move microphone]
DH Oct 2025 is a significant time

later from when SF didn't advise you to raise legal proceedings.
SP yes
DH so SH....NC interrupts we can shorten
[NC/DH discussing]

DH thank you that was a helpful discussion with MLF. I would suggest that there was nothing to prevent you from raising a claim about SF's actions earlier than you did, would you accept that
SP - yes
DH bear with me while I check my notes.

<Wails into the abyss.>

From Nick Wallis

DH in this email you say "thank you for your assistance" - it's a platitude of course, but you do not seem to be taking issue with what she's doing
SP yes
DH given she had tried to have a meeting with you and you had not responded it might be difficult for her to understand how you were feeling about what you wanted her to do
SP yes
DH let's go to p515 in which GT explains why neither she nor RCN have made public comment
and she sets that out in her email to you. Do you accept that?
SP yes
DH so I appreciate you may have been mistaken or spoken a little bit loosely when you said GT had only been in contact 2 or 3 times "just to check in" - there was substantially more contact and effort on
her part, wasn't there?
SP yes
DH your final req of GT was after the amendment to your claim but it might be useful for context is on p516 and that's an email from you to GT on 15 Dec 2025 and in that email you ask for the RCN to org for women to come forward with a collective
grievance about single sex spaces
SP yes
DH GT doesn't do that but she emails you on 22 Dec p519 and in that email in the third par she says why that hasn't been done and there have not been any other members come forward to raise the matter about single sex spaces at NHS Fife

I appreciate you said people were "fearful" of coming forward, but the RCN acts in confidence and therefore they can come forward with confidence and if they did
we could raise a grievance. Did you give the RCN any steers as to who they might approach?
SP "I would expect them to ask most population of the female staff in hospital"
Does that expectation mean you didn't steer the RCn to anyone who you thought might be worth approaching?
SP that's right

DH you have had specialist legal advice on employment matters since early 2024
SP yes
DH part of your claim is focused on SF and his actions or inactions - but it's clear from Feb 2024 you wanted to raise proceedings against NHS Fife
SP yes
DH by that point you must have realised there was something about SF's advice you were not happy about
SP yes
DH we discussed you having received advice about an approach to litigation in late Dec 2024. You were probably aware there were time limits on employment claims
SP yes
DH Oct 2025 is quite a sig time after SF has apparently failed you in not apparently having advised you properly about legal action - would you accept that
SP yes
DH I would suggest there was nothing to prevent you from having raised a claim earlier than you did...

... would you accept that?
SP yes
[there is a pause - DH appears to be suggesting he's close to wrapping up]
DH those are all the q's I have for you
J no qs from me - re-ex?
NC yes a few qs - could we take a quick adjournment so I may take instruction from my sol
[J allows it and rises for 10 mins]

From TT:

DH thank you very much, those are all the questions I have for you.
J - I don't have any questions, NC?
NC - yes, I would have some further questions, if we could have a short break to take instructions.
J yes, 10 minutes sufficient?
NC yes

End of afternoon session part one.

I wonder what NC said to DH that led him to say he was finished?

In this case it was clear (I can say as we're on a break) that Naomi wanted to take instruction "from my instructing solicitor" i.e., not from Sandie herself.

Apologies, I was on bluetooth and the kettle was boiling.

If I, as a doctor, had a problem with a nurse the correct course of action would be to raise it with my line manager or if I thought they couldn't deal with it for some reason I could go directly to HR. It would be improper process but understandable if I went to the head of department, the person in charge of the department on the night, or at a pinch the nurse's line manager.

All these are the face of the employer, not any of the unions.

I could in parallel, or even slightly beforehand, ask my own union for support in raising the issue with HR/my manager. They would help me with the process but wouldn't investigate or mediate the dispute themselves. I couldn't go to the union representing the nurse. They don't represent me and could offer no support. Doctors have their own union. Non clinical managers have their own union.

IIRC, the duty manager that weeping Beth ran to on the night was a nurse. But that nurse had no reason to go to her union. She had no complaint of her own, and no need of support.

Perhaps, that they weren't claiming that Sandie thought at the time that RCN should have been offering more, so he didn't need to labour that? The interruption came at the point where he started a sentence with something like "If you genuinely thought...". It does seem that he spent a lot of time saying in effect "but you didn't complain" and Sandie wasn't pushing back at that at all - it seems that the case may be that she shouldn't have had to know what RCN should have been doing, but that they didn't do what they should have done, nonetheless?

I have not heard anything, so I think not.

Quite often the lay members will have been union officials or reps, so it may be that.

Well, that was a yawn fest. 🥱