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

Oh, good point.

Nick Wallis writes "I'm just earwigging conversation between counsel - looks like just Norman Provan all day tomorrow and then Bethany Hutchison and Jennifer Melle on Monday. We're basically a day ahead of schedule."

Yes, it'll be interesting to hear what the legal folks say, but my feeling was that the FSU evidence would have been enormously helped by some actual figures, e.g. between X and Y we have assisted n members of the RCN with free speech relating to sex and gender, m of whom requested assistance from the RCN but were refused... Perhaps it's impractical, though, if the numbers would have had to be evidenced.

10 tomorrow as usual I think.

And we're done. Anyone get what the issue was with the non-availability of the other Claimant witnesses till Monday? "They're under a witness order so they should be here" did the judge say? However, we get an RCN witness tomorrow.

Damn. When are we due to start tomorrow? I zoned out…

Judge getting a bit arsey.

From TT:

DH: I suppose what I'm asking is, it's not clear what further support the RCN had been asked for?
SG: Well he says he has asked for a review, you can see here. Negotiating with employer on his own.

DH: But it says he is getting RCN support re regulator, and has been given a solicitor
SG: Yes

DH: Do you know any more about what other support this person in p1117 might be getting from RCN after the dates of these emails?
SG: No.

DH: No more Qs
[ No J Qs and no re-examination either]

The RCNs bias is quite clear through these witnesses.

From TT:

DH: And p1117. Again, dated email correspondence. Jan 2026 dates?
SG: Yes Jan to Feb.

DH: FSU asked whether RCN representing, re disciplinary and re regulatory, and reply is partly redacted but says "RCN not representing" there, but says later that disciplinary is completed and nurse still employed.
SG: Yes

DH: So what ongoing employment issues are there?
SG: I don't have the rest of the file. But, just because a disciplinary process has completed does not mean still no issues - there could be grievances, appeals.

From TT:

DH: Then she copy-pastes some emails from the RCN rep, we see blue text?
SG: Yes my understanding
DH: Then two emails and then a short email, purple text, copy of a reply by nurse to the rep?
SG: Yes

DH: We can see the email chain was sent to FSU by the nurse November 2024. And dates of the embedded emails are noted, one is Dec 2023 and the other is Nov 2023
SG: Yes

DH: So sent to you a year later?
SG: Yes that's what it says.
DH: has this case proceeded to formal proceedings do you know?
SG: Not to my knowledge

Sorry, got to go out now. @fanOfBen, you ok to take over?

DH: Looking at p1116. You explained that this nurse is from Glasgow area?
SG: Yes that's my understanding
DH: She conveys 3 things - recounts a convo between herself and RCN rep? SG: Yes

DH: Did the FSU contribute these for the bundle?
SG: Yes
DH: To illustrate the examples?
SG: Yes
DH: NC asked you Qs about patterns about the cases and questions you get. Do I understand that your evidence on that has come from considering your case management system?
SG: Yes
DH: So every case is entered on database and you can get and analyse reports, cases by type?
SG: Yes
DH: We don't have reports from the system here? Is that because it's considered privileged?
SG: No, it wouldn't be privileged.
DH: The raw material includes details of cases?
SG: Yes
DH: Names, dates?
SG: Yes

SG has just blown a hole in the RCN maybe trying to say they dont help when the person has already had legal advice. " In one case the FSU was doing all the support but the RCN did eventually step in." He makes it clearer "Eventually we were getting close of out of time so we drafted pleadings - she was able to take those to the RCN who did eventually then support her."

Thanks nauticant for the thread and the copy and paste people.

NC: p1117.
NC: Can you tell us about this exchange?
SG: One of the nurses I mentioned, both regulatory and employment proceedings. Case officer says she understands RCN will help with both prongs, he replies confirming not helping with employment aspect.
SG: He applied for a review I think citing FWS case, and he confirms RCN supporting re regulatory.

DH: Just a few Qs. We've just looked at 2 emails, p1116 and 1117. These are email chains as you see?
SG: Yes
DH: Did the FSU contribute these for the bundle?
SG: Yes
DH: To illustrate the examples?
SG: Yes

Interesting but hearsay surely? Doesn’t mean it’s not admissible, but less probative I think.

SG: Eventually we were getting close of out of time so we drafted pleadings - she was able to take those to the RCN who did eventually then support her.
NC: Any other cases?
SG: Another where the context was handover and the nurse used correct pronouns - subjected to regulatory and employment matters - RCN only aided with regulatory. We also get a lot of information sent to us too about union policies and people are worried about those and ask how to change.
NC: Do you recall a Glasgow based nurse?
SG: Yes she wrote to us with concerns, not facing problems immediately but wanted advice on challenging a policy that she felt detrimental to GC beliefs. She raised with RCN rep who refused to help and said something like, her values not aligned with RCN's so couldn't assist.
NC: p1116
SG: Yes this is her email - she tells us here about what RCN had said about if her values not aligned with RCN they would not be able to represent her.

SG: In one case the FSU was doing all the support but the RCN did eventually step in. But in general it doesn't happen. Though the RCN we do have on record providing proper support in other areas - just not this one.
NC [missed a Q]
NC: Can you tell us about proportion of cases that do get union support in the GC area?
SG: Zero in sense of complete support provided, a few where it's partial. Compared to cases in other areas eg race where much more union support.
NC: Can you give example?
SG: A nurse was involved in an end-of-shift handover - there was a troubled young woman who identified as trans and nurse felt these were significant elements of patient care and so described patient correctly as female & mention the trans id.
SG: Slightly complicated bcs agency nurse, but covered by EA. The colleagues reported her to agency and said don't send her again. FSU took up the case as, manifestation of protected belief. We encouraged her to ask RCN for help and she did try, we assisted her with that and ACAS.

Oh bum! I logged out during the break as a reflex!

I can see 2 in the lobby in my room. I was in the waiting room for an hour this morning, having tried to join late. Didn’t get let in until it restarted after lunch break

NC: And what can you tell us about nurses bring cases to you, and how many are GC-related.
SG: Healthcare respondents are recorded. Nurses aren't the biggest group but still significant, but re nurses about two thirds are 'gender critical' cases - that's much higher than most areas.
NC: Can you tell us anything re this about the RCN?
SG: I have not been able to find a single case of RCN provided support of any scale to any of our cases. In a couple of cases RCN has assisted partially eg supporting re regulator but not re employer.

There's only one person waiting in the lobby in my room. I think I waited about 15-20 minutes to be let in mid session just now.

I'm still not in. Can people in the various rooms see oodles of people waiting in the lobby?

NC: Topics relevant to this case?
SG: re 'gender critical beliefs' - we have a couple of topics related, one re transgender matters generally, and pronoun use comes up a lot.
NC: Do you record whether ppl are working with their union also?
SG: General policy is actually not to take up cases where union is already helping, but yes we record.
NC: How many 'gender critical' cases has FSU dealt with over last few years? SG: Don't have exact stats but categorically it's the single biggest group of cases we've had - about a quarter of our cases.
SG: In the last year - the number of GC cases has continued to rise but the proportion has dropped a little.