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

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

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

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.

The RCNs bias is quite clear through these witnesses.

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]

Judge getting a bit arsey.

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

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.

10 tomorrow as usual I think.

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.

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."

My thanks to everyone keeping us informed.

NW thinks they're a day ahead of schedule, they seem to be flying through it then, is that a good thing or a bad sign?

Oh, good point.

anyone know if the separate community union case is being covered by TT as I think that's tomorrow?

My understanding of what I heard of the judge’s snippiness was that the claimants witnesses weren’t ready and waiting in a back room of the court just in case they’d be needed… given that they weren’t expected to be needed till Monday that they’re travelling some distance and (I think) they work 7 day shift patterns, did the judge really expect them to be available just-in-case on a Thursday afternoon?

I've been out, you've finished already!

Yeah, given they have a case management system that has the capability of producing reports, some figures would have been useful. It felt very anecdotal tbh.

Thank you @fanOfBen and @BettyBooper and @nauticant for all the work! People like me can nip in after work and have a nosy about and get a vague idea what’s going on.

It feels very different from the original one, where we were all aghast and agog all the way through. So far at least, this feels a bit more organised and slick. But maybe that’s just because those of us following along are a bit more experienced?

I think it's really more the contrast between DH and JR!

Yep @fanOfBen It's amazing how fast and smooth it goes when you don't have a TRA KC in the proceedings.

Micheal Foran commented on the different tone of Jane Russel who he described as combative.

someone on twix said DH was a TRA lawyer, and had been the respondents KC in the poster's tribunal case.

But he's still behaving better than JR did.

maybe the FSU stats will be in submissions?

Personal beliefs shouldn’t affect how a barrister argues a case. JR was just flat out unprofessional.

Just got home.

Seems I missed some good witnesses!

As an aside...

Patient Ambulance Transport picked me up for my hospital appointment, I mentioned they'd interrupted me watching a tribunal. That's all I said. The response "Oh is that the Sandie Peggie one?"

This is David Hay
https://www.westwateradvocates.com/advocate/david-j-p-hay-kc/
As his page says, he acted for Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre in the case brought by Roz Adams. (Naomi acted for Roz, and won the case.) The case was followed here but I don't remember it well - think I was too busy with work to pay much attention! Here's TribunalTweets' substack on it
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre
and here's one of the threads about it (was it the last? not sure, but it doesn't end with an obvious next thread link)
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4992537-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-5
Maybe that jogs the memory of people who've seen him in action before?