NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #5

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely can be obtained by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2

Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3

Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4

This is disgraceful. These organisations seem to exist in a righteous bubble (ref Jo Phoenix tribunal) in which they are certain they are right in continuing a witch hunt. Then, when it gets to court, they are shown up for the incompetent ideologues that they are. Who are their legal teams FGS.

The room looks so small - they're all squished in together.

Are those sombre looking people sitting at the wall the honorary guard/ emotional support puppies?

But NC is saying that patient safety issue was not part of original complaint

JR looks as though she'd rather be somewhere else, and no wonder.

It like Fife thought they could wave a piece of paper with sequins glued on saying
FEELINGS! SAD! RASPBERRY-COLOURED SCRUBS! TWAW!
and the judge and the entire legal structure would just go oh OK then... burn the witch..
FFS

So it sounds to me like they’re effectively setting this up to say SP was suspended solely because of the CR incident, and not because of concerns over patient safety, which is arguably an unreasonable action, even punitive and suspension should always be a neutral act. They will need to justify the suspension based on the information available to them at the time they took the decision, along with any mitigation considered and rejected, making suspension the only reasonable action available.

'There is a line where BU says 'a couple of issues with Sandy earlier' and Angela Glancy says 'these are not in your statement, but we'd like to hear them'

'Indicates A Glancy was investigating 'hate incident' not 'formal complaint''

Given the way this case has been reported so far in the media, it'll be fascinating to see how today's activity is presented!

Fife's approach to this sounds so amateur. How can they possibly think people wouldn't notice that documents haven't been disclosed?

I think laying the ground for getting a costs order is ancillary and not the purpose of this submission. She wants the documents. They are crucial.

To deal with a couple of points...

Disclosure failures are almost invariably down to the client, not their legal representatives.

The tribunal is allowed to draw negative inferences from the non-disclosure, so they can assume that the reason Fife and DU have failed to disclose evidence is that it is seriously damaging to their case.

Thanks @prh47bridge

Letter from Lottie Miles 28th March 24 to claimant:

'in explaining arrangements she thinks necessary for claimant's return to work, she says 'it allows proper oversight ensures no issues arise, lift suspension, allows for oversight of your interactiuons with staff and patients - part of the reason for suspension rleates to care for patients'

The tribunal panel continued to hear about Mrs Peggie being unkind to Dr Upton.

Could she ask for the respondents case to be struck out for not complying with the order?

'It would appare Charlotte Miles is aware of issues in 'formal complaint' in May when she intreviews BU, Angela Glancy doens't seem to be aware of issues related to patient safety'

Considerable confusion in what trust thought they were investigating'

'This is immense [relevance?] for tribunal to do justice'

'stakes are extraordinarily high'

Who is going to respond to this? The judges?

'stakes are extraordinarily high'

It's a message to Upton: You've been used mate.

'2nd respsondent has made potenitally career ending allegations against claimant, whould raise clear fitness to practise questions'

'if those allegations are untrue, obviously potential consequences for 2nd respondent'

'essential for fairness to all this matter is properly aired'

Omg. I can't believe this - when health and social care is experiencing such pressures!

@prh47bridge
Adding to people's thanks for your comments on here - and elsewhere on MN -which are always so helpful. You are very generous with your expertise.

NC this material is of immense importance to the tribunal in determining the case. The allegations in respect of both the claimant and the second respondent are potentially career ending.

(paraphrase) - 2nd respondent has raised issues that could be career-ending for SP. If true could have professional implications for SP. If untrue could have serious repercussions for 2nd respondent (SP)

'Defiance'

Upton's hurt feelings are starting to pale into insignificance, aren't they