NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #6

[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

Thread 5: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5

Just go back home ready to dial in a 2pm. Seems like I missed a very interesting morning.

Reading TT next.

So it sounds like initial complaints were re changing room "hate incident" - patient safety concerns were added later.
Presumably the patient safety "concerns" from Dr U are 1. He asked a colleague to ask Sandie a question, Sandie replied to the colleague, who passed the information on to Dr U (was there any more too it than that?) and 2. She suggested he complete a patient's observations (e.g. pulse/BP/temp at a guess) while he was in the room with the patient.

Are those the main concerns?

So then NC asks "what did the trust think they were investigating" - because if they are investigating patient safety concerns (with the now known outcome of suspension) how did they investigate and document it? Or did they just take one person's word?

Surely there has to be something pretty serious for immediate suspension?

I work in the NHS - suspensions rarely happen. And certainly not without the person suspended knowing why, as NC seems to be suggesting.

Similar issues would usually lead to a discussion with your line manager/clinical lead, then an improvement plan if needed. It would have to be something imminently dangerous to get immediate suspension.

Good point. Maybe Dr U can transfer to HR and sort out their bloody awful record keeping

There were only two folx wearing tights in the photo, DrU and what seemed to be another tw, although it could have been a woman with a beefy build. Long dark hair and a cross body bag with a thick white strap.

Great news about the donations for SP's dad ❤️

Having read Tribunal Tweets I am unclear over who the person is (MG?) that sent the email that said the suspension should be lifted and the changing rooms returned to female only. So I am guessing it wasn't the investigator that said that? But the implication that NC is making is that this email may be connected to the change in investigation team.

I thought this tweet was extraordinary about the lack of documentation

NC - R1 says is no correspondence about the Cs suspension, but that cant be possible. It's an extraordinary thing to do w 30 yr old staff member. Decided to tear up and start again and inconceivable cld happen w/out signif documents. Esp when EDs support was MSF

ArabellaScott · Today 12:27

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 interactions with staff and patients - part of the reason for suspension relates to care for patients'

That must have been gutting for Sandie to read - as far as we know so far, no one has mentioned any "concerns" regarding her interactions with patients.

his "wife" maybe?

😂😂😂

MG - Margaret Gribbons, Claimant’s solicitor

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1887834173055914280

So is NC going on the hunt for a smoking gun? That somewhere along the line in the non investigation, there was advice that Dr U should not have been in the changing room in the first place?

That. Would. Be. Epic.

There's such gulf between Dr U's documentation of
his colleagues' interactions/eye contact etc etc
and his (lack of) documentation of any complaint-related meetings or discussions.

It would but she's aiming for an unfair and chaotic process of investigation.

I like your reasoning here

When it doesn’t identify as an “investigation”, don’t be mean and please be considerate of how the investigation self identifies.

Hold the phone. Going back a few pages and I'm not following live, but WHAT???

At the end of this non-investigation, it was suggested that SP go back to work and the changing rooms be made female only immediately because the decisions that had been made were unlawful but this was ignored because it wasn't really an investigation, and then an actual investigation was started.

NHS Fife says "hands up, we woz wrong, get her back to work and tell Mx Beardie to use the gents as he always has done" and they've HIDDEN that from the tribunal????

Holy fuck.

How on earth can that be spun any way but negatively for NHS Fife. I'm in that health board and they're SHITE. This, this, THIS is what they choose to spend their money on, rather than seeing patients and doing their goddamned jobs???

The more the better, btw.

I'm trying to transcribe accurately but it's cold and my fingers don't work well in the cold, and the sound is shite. So the more people offering accounts the better, so we can piece together as accurate a picture as possible.

I think there's a misunderstanding - there hasn't been any suggestion in the tribunal that an initial investigation said that Sandie should be reinstated. This is what her solicitor said.

Would the person who initially advised (after a Quick Look rather than an actual investigation 😜) a different course of action be able to speak up? Could she be called as a witness?

.

That's my impression too. Although the morning was so chaotic there was plenty I missed.

OMG read TT now need to read the other thread first.

Ah, thank you. That raised my blood pressure a few points.

Have we heard yet what "Kate Searle's intemperate and inappropriate email to all A+E consultants" said yet?

I think (I've been corrected on an earlier error - it was SP's solicitor who wrote to NHS Fife and told them the suspension was unlawful) that what has happened is that SP was suspended based on the changing room complaints only, quite early on, but that it isn't certain at the moment whether or not correct procedure was followed for that suspension because NHS Fife have for some reason failed to provide the paper trail to show what was done and how the suspension was justified.

So we don't know that it wasn't justified, but we don't know that it was, either. We don't know.

What has been said is that any investigating that was done regarding the changing room complaints was not an investigation, though it isn't clear yet what was actually done due to the missing paper trail. There seem to have been some conversations and people might have made notes but then again they might not and even if they did it doesn't count because it wasn't an investigation. That came later, when there was an official investigator, and that's when the complaints about patient care were added on.

If I've misunderstood someone please let me know!