Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

Blood transfusion?

TT

DH - (refers to loose document page 1256, meeting to discuss recs of report 29 July) we see on first page of this note, under intro statement, first point - noted that there was a need to update current conflict of interests.
NP - yes

I think he bled out in the chair though

TT

NP - yes an action plan based on report. Internal processes. Ongoing NMC processes in relation to those members
DH - Fair Care for Trans Patients - questions about that - you drew distinction between policy and guide?

NP - a policy might give advice to steward, advice Whereas this is a clinical advice to inform practice. As opposed to union doc.

This is where DH tries fix the bloody gaping wounds in his client's defence with a small sticking plaster.

TT

NC - no other questions
DH - you were directed to the Review of the Supp Bundles beginning of P1122.

DH - turn to p1123, we can see that the date the year at the footer, 2022, looks like issued 2022. Sept 2022, page 1199. We you aware if any work done by RCN in light of conclusions made in this Report.

@Datun Well i promise i bloody well would have done as a steward, and i would have made the union step in legally

That is what a steward is for, to pissing advocate for its members, fuck niceties on such a situation.

DH back up

NC done.

God, if only. All the bloody wasted time and money. It's so scandalous is difficult to believe.

TT

NP - Yes
NC - It should be obvious why nobody would want to do that given what happened to Sandie
NP - can't answer that - speculative

swag, swag, swag...repeat ad infinitum

Translation, you or your mate could have gone to SP particular workplace, possibly fucking jogged and told them as follows

THE WORKPLACE REGS THE SC RULING JUST PACK IT IN.

Who thought SWAG was a good acronym?

TT

NC - MG letter 10 June. Next step in story. MG reitterates law has been spelled out and asks the union to adhere to the law. NC your response was to direct her letters to your solicitors.
NP - Yes

NC - your response essentially repeating what you had already said, that you were waiting for the Scottish gov to act. NP yes

NC - page 518. Most of questions I will be asking of GT, you are small part of that story. We see your PA asking colleagues whether any issues about changing rooms. GT wrote to SP saying that couldn't be collective grievance.

Gosh! Can't have him speculating now can we!

Nick Wallis writes

NP this was raised at SWAG, it was raised at subsequent meetings, at the SWAG secretariat and I asked it be minuted that the unions were frustrated at the fact it was not being moved on

Sigh

Odd answer to that question

Gosh! He insisted on the topic being minuted! I’m sure if he’d told Sandie that little nugget she would have given him a big pat on the head.

He is right, RCN weren't doing nothing. They were actively having meetings about how to thwart For Women Judgement.

TT

NC - you like government had the benefit of the SC judgement itself. An unlawful practice had been adopted practice, an unlawful local practice, you were sitting on your hands, you the RCN.
NP- I disagree that the SWAG meeting was minuted.

TT

NC at the time of SC judgement they suspended policies and withdrew back. No policy in the system at the time. I am suggesting there was no gov policy to revisit, what there was was a practice that had grown up seen at NHS Fife that was at detriment to all female staff.

That practice had crept in and you as a union did nothing about it.
NP - partnership happens at SWAG, do not agree RCN doing nothing. RCN suggested SWAG had a role to play.

It's like being told off by your mum when she's going for the calm you know what you did was wrong tone with a level of I'm so disappointed in you.

And while all this talk about partnerships and policy discussions via SWAG is going on….poor Sandie is suspended and being treated as if she has done something wrong ! But the men at the union did fuck all !!