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

DH 2 paras below ‘at last years annual congress in Glasgow’.
NP all members present not just Scottish DH late 2023 any awareness of dispute?
NP no
DH you have involvement of policy at a collective level. An issue in this case the RCN position might have. Are you aware of a corporate position and how they might interact with other positions?
NP I’m aware of strongly held views on both sides. Never aware that RCN has taken one side only.

[😂😂

Ooh ooh ooh NC up.

Gah! Lunch instead!

.

I'll admit to a brief sigh of relief on returning home to discover Naomi hadn't got started on him yet .

“We won’t be so harsh on you if you didn’t know” implies it’s a punitive policy. Why is it necessary or worthwhile to punish a member for seeking outside legal help?

I’m not suggesting you yourself agree with that - but it’s a question I’d like to understand.

Finally. I think the end may be in sight.

Well, apart from thinking her expressing those being harmful to the RNC... Apart from that, not at all...

Not just still giving evidence but not even got as far as being cross-examined by Naomi yet

DH p.22.
NP minutes of the AGM .
EM contributions to that meeting. Is EM still a member?
NP don’t know
DH p1116 email in evidence to FSU November 2024. An RCN member emails. NP not familiar with the FSU. Seems to be raising concerns.

"DH were you aware LM held GC views and did that influence your decision?
NP not at all. I was aware but not influenced at all."

Hmmm 🤔

God!

I've been to the doctors, the shop, the loo, made a cup of tea and taken a phone call AND this guy is still giving evidence.

Shoot me!

Shoot me now!

DH - her criticism of the prison. Which was the clause engaged in LM case?
NP 11/3 I believe she already had permission from her line manager
DH p 24 - 30. Screengrab of linked in Ellie Mulveney (?) what’s the connection? NP I recollect she was a student information officer.
DH was she a member of RCN
NP yes. Not on staff.

In my view the RCN should still support its members even if they have taken legal advice already. They could say we cant work with other solicitors so you'll have to pick whether its private or ours but not ethical to refuse any support.

What I meant was that when someone took legal advice without being aware that it would stand against them that the RCN still supporting them was the right thing to do.

DH you mentioned you had a good working relationship with LM. Were you aware of any impact after this process?
NP not aware of a relationship change in any way.
DH the article in question were you aware of it?
NP only the day before.
DH an article advancing POV and critiques.
NP yes
DH to what extent the content influenced your decision?
NP the content was irrelevant, the question was whether she’d breached her contract.
DH clause 11 of the contract

She did not criticise prison service staff, just policy.

NP Lisa might come into contact with prison service staff she had criticised. Important that her role at RCN was highly differentiated from other work.
DH were you aware LM held GC views and did that influence your decision?
NP not at all. I was aware but not influenced at all.

Hmm RCN barrister is accidentally leading NP to tie himself in a discretionary knot.

NP The decision was to whether any work being done outside that would impact RCN. I decided LM had breached her contract , a technical breach, not maliciously done.
DH you set out your reasoning in letter.
NP yes
DH last page 731. You set out in some detail what was in your mind when reaching the decision. A letter of concern to be issued?
NP a note on Lisa’s file setting out any action to be taken.
DH why appropriate to issue a letter?
NP Lisa had been passive in setting out her declaration of interest form. Her manager could have been more proactive too. Needed to set out difficulties to Lisa, including her own social media.

[!!!]

I’m missing something. Why is “our way or the highway” the right thing to do?

NW's tweet said this

'DH let's go back to p118 - it says RCN "may" decide not to represent you. Why did you reach the decision not withstanding the "may"
NP I did it because it is what I do in every single case where people have taken legal advice by their own choice. I only apply "may" if people didn't know about our rule. But not if they ought to have known or did know.'

So yeah clear as cocoa.

Did he mean that if someone took legal advice without being aware that it would stand against them as far as Unions representation was concerned, the RCN could choose to go ahead and support them?

That is exactly what I thought he said. It would also be the right thing to do.

The FSU did say that they had done pleadings which someone had taken to the RCN and got support from them. I imagine they'll refuse to discuss that case or say that they didnt realise legal advice had been taken or that the person putting forward the pleadings was unaware of the rule about getting other legal advice.