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

I'm going to go and do my going-out now - may not quite be back by 1pm but it sounds as though BettyBooper will be here.

@fanOfBen . I'm back now and can take over after lunch, if that suits you? I'm out for 20mins from 3.10. Could you cover that?

Cross post!

What time is the restart? 1300 or 1330?

My experience as union rep was that new and revised policies are circulated to the branch committee for comment. But branch reps are all general employees who also hold a union post - not specialists. As far as I know they don't go to the central union for their legal experts to review. That simply wouldn't be practical with the number of different workplaces a union covers.

So this sort of legal issue would only be picked up if one of the committee happened to have a specific interest in the relevant legislation (for example, an avid reader of Keeptoiletssafe's posts on MN).

And he prompted NC to bring it up later.

It's an intrusive process which can go on for year

The process being the punishment.

who are Jennifer Wilmott and Pauline Fox?

I thought SF was full time in his post. Not doing it along with another job.

Mind you, there may be a hint of a clue from his ‘notes’ that SF is a believer/enforcer in an ideology which is about letting men do what they want, where they want. Maybe all such activists/actors in the Unions push for all good girls being made aware they need to kow tow to that. Or else they’re hateful b-tches who should be put in their place, or have to undergo a witch hunt, or be suspended or lose their livelihoods. That’d teach them to say no to men. These people definitely know who are the men and who are the women, despite the faux declarations of ‘trans female’, and calling men ‘she’.

All my own suspicions of course, as I don’t trust these bro’s, or their enablers. I do know that if SF wasn’t defining woman by biological sex, he was not in line with the law. And, in my opinion, complicit in promoting a less safe, less comfortable and less dignified work space for women who are undressing or vulnerable. He sure as heck didn’t jump in straight away to say that it was against single sex workplace regulations. Quite selective these unions, it seems, on whose ‘rights’ they’ll defend. And who they’ll accuse of being hateful for wanting their rights in law upheld.

From TT

Welcome to the afternoon session on day 2 of the case at Employment Tribunal Sandie Peggie vs the Royal College of Nursing.

Full coverage of the case so far is on our substack page https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-the-royal-college-of-nursing

The hearing is due to begin at 1pm, having taken an earlier than usual lunch break.

"Jenny Wilmot and Pauline Fox, two RCN members bringing their own belief discrimination claims against the union, are also scheduled to give evidence."

Oh wow!

[We begin] J: room is v hot, do remove jackets if you need to
J [swears in the next witness]
NC: Confirm name?
JW: Jennifer Wilmot
NC [ref] Do you recognise?
JW: Yes, email from RCN - inviting to a meeting to talk about Supreme court judgement and how might affect work.
JW: And this is same thing but from RCN website - events in person or online, to discuss impact of judgment.

NC: Both you and Pauline Fox attended these sessions?
JW: Yes I signed up I think 19/6, for the first session I think was 24/6, and I think PF signed up for the day after.
NC: And both you and PF have your own claims at employment tribunal, arising out of those sessions?
JW: Yes

NC: [ref 608] - can you tell us what this is?
JW: I think it's the sign-up page, from RCN website, explains sessions re SC judgment on 'sex' in EA2010. It's inviting nurses to come and learn how this affects nurses in our roles.

Struck by how it feels like the grown-ups are in the room. No blue haired weirdos yet.

NC [629] these are your and PF particulars of claims?
JW: Yes
NC: How well do you know PF?
JW: Not well actually - not at all until we were put in touch after these sessions.
NC: You say you signed up for first one - did you do anything else?
JW: Yes I emailed RCN and explained that I am director of Scottish Lesbians, who had been one of the 3 lesbian intervenors in the SC case - basically offering my services to RCN in case that experience any use to them.

I'm not sure if it was Michael Foran, but someone yesterday gave me the impression that had not been the situation in the previous Sandie Peggie case with NC,
and that was because the senior counsel in the latter was just not very good at her job.

just catching up after lunch - who is this witness?
(also I want a snowball now!)

JW: RCN have a dedicated 'SC feedback' email address so I emailed that, and I also used a contact form on the RCN website - I think membership area - saying the same thing, explaining who I am and offering help.
JW: I did get an auto-response from the website form saying would be in contact in 5 days, but, I got no further response from either route.
NC: Describe the sessions?
JW: 4 or 5 RCN reps - quite senior, I think head of equality and diversity I think. All spoke and someone was presumably monitoring chat. A video from the Head of Legal I think it was. And, I think 30-40 attendees.

Reps are union members who organise in their workplace, have some workplace legal knowledge/experience and are often the 'accompanying person' at internal disciplinary meetings.

SF was/is an RCN Officer - employed by the RCN to support members organise and run their branches, and make first assessment of whether to refer a member to the legal team for legal support during e.g. ET or FTP investigations. I don't know if an Officer would get involved in the latter stages of internal disciplinary process.

JW: I don't think I knew any of them.
NC: Any introduction before the video from Joanne Galbraith Martin [?]
JW: Yes - introduction saying opportunity to give our thoughts on the judgment. She said "safe space" and that anyone being unsafe might end session
JW: Talked of support available for any LGBTQI+ attendees who might be upset, or anyone else. Then it was the main session.
NC: [ref] This is transcript of the video, yes?
JW: Yes. My memory of what she said was that she described the FWS case and the ruling, and gave accurate summary.

NC: How were floor contributions managed?
JW: At start, all cameras and microphones turned off. There were contribution points when mics & cameras turned on. When I first tried to speak my mic wouldn't come on and I couldn't, so, not particularly smoothly managed.
JW: But the chat function was open to anyone that wanted to contribute there.