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

Can I just show some support for the judge taking longhand notes. I do the same when I am sitting on conduct hearings. It keeps your attention focused better as its active listening rather than something more passive. Also I often note any questions that occur to me that I can come back to if they aren’t answered in the evidence.

Not speculating, asking what was said in court today, in the public domain. Will look through TT to figure it out. Also public domain.

Good to see at least one media outlet report on this clearly https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nhs-fife-accused-deliberately-withholding-34638106.amp

Reg 24 of The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 3004 of 1992):

Facilities for changing clothing
24.—(1) Suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for any person at work in the workplace to change clothing in all cases where-

• the person has to wear special clothing for the purpose of work; and
• the person can not, for reasons of health or propriety, be expected to change in another room.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the facilities mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless the include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety [F1 and th facilities are easily accessible, of sufficient capacity and provided with seating].

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/21

May I please ask a question of those more in the know - presumably this case has been months in the making, and yet some of the documents needed were only provided at gone 9pm last night, with only a matter of hours before the second respondent was due to be questioned. What would the judge make of that? Surely that alone is seen as an underhand tactic?

If you're trying to get the key points from 2 weeks of insanely-complicated proceedings, longhand notes are incredibly effective if they're taken correctly, which I'd assume the Chair knows how to do. The main advantage of typing notes into an electronic device is that they're searchable.

Well they do say qui scribit, bis legit, don't they? whoever 'they' are😄

I think it has now been proved that handwriting notes eg lecture notes, as opposed to entering them on a device, improves comprehension and retention of information.
So 'writing is like reading twice', and I'm with the judge and his nice shiny new notebook. And fountain pen?

I got the impression that the Dr S email to the 17 A&E colleagues on 29/12 was about staff arrangements following the incident on 24/12. NC wants to know what it said and (I think) whether it gives reasons for the suspension of SP.

It is not the same email which mentioned with "hate incident" in the subject line which seems to be between Dr U and the BMA at a different time regarding drafting of a formal complaint - again NC wants sight of this to see what is referred to and if the professional conduct issues were raised at that time.

If professional matters are not in either of the two emails above, then the first time that accusation appears in the docs is March 2024 which makes it look like this was an add-on and unrelated to the original suspension. I am not totally sure why this is all important but NC seems to want to consider the "hate incident" and the "professional competence" accusations separately.

edited to add link from earlier post: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6?reply=141987290&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

It's not that uncommon TwoDrifters2, the panel will have seen it before. They'll probably grumble and accept it but they could kick of if the "offending" side doesn't remedy the breach or if it happens again.

Thank you! It seemed a bit churlish.

KnottyAuty if I am reading between the lines correctly, the question is whether the professional competence accusations really have any basis at all, or are just being used as a justification for going after SP when the real reason was wrong-think. That suspicion comes from the observed timeline where those accusations seem to have appeared and disappeared and reappeared again. NC's saying she wants to know what Fife thought they were investigating when, relates. It's very important, because the internal investigation found her to be at fault, and if this case concludes leaving that judgement intact, then she may still be subject to fitness to practice processes in future, which would obviously be very unfair if in fact the accusations were essentially a witchhunt.

I have no investment in Lucy Letby conspiracy theories or the outcome of the forthcoming review, but as the trial and then the Thirlwall Enquiry unfolded I found the alternative narrative of a (maybe) slightly socially inept young NHS worker being singled out as a scapegoat by senior colleagues highly relatable. Such things do happen.

@fanOfBen that matches what I am understanding.

And further to that:
'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'

Which I took to mean that if the only basis for the fitness to practice allegations is Dr U's notes or emails (and no other evidence has been uncovered) then that could be considered libellous and subject to separate legal action unless withdrawn (?)

There was also a note in the pre-trial paperwork concerning the request for anonymity which referred to Dr U as potentially being exposed to financial penalties or risk or something? At the time I couldn't understand what that might be because I assumed he would have Prof Indemnity Insurance or similar - but of course that only covers professional care and probably wouldn't cover libellous remarks. FAFO indeed!

The Scottish Daily Express article linked to above mentions that Peggie's case cites 'whistleblowing'. I haven't heard that mentioned at all in the coverage of the tribunal that I have read on MN. Is it really part of her case?
I know that whistleblowers have some legal protection, and (intuitively) it would seem entirely appropriate to regard someone as a whistleblower if they complained about violations of the H&S requirement to provide separate changing facilities based on sex. But nothing I have read seems to turn on this. Anyone able to clarify?

It does. There seems to be very little, if any, accountability and that is just not good enough.

@AlbertCamusflage The pre-hearing meeting papers (where the decision to not give DU anonymity was made) state that SP is arguing that her discussion with DU in the changing room should be regarded as a protected disclosure and that she was victimized because of this.

Tbh that sounds like a very thin argument and I doubt she's going to win that bit.

I'll try to find a link to the doc - it was a few threads back!

The whistleblowing seems to relate to the changing room incident - when the HA were acting against the law by failing to provide a single sex CR.

Anyone on twitter is being asked to report this account for harassment https://x.com/SEENpoliceUK?t=jZinUlH0hAkWsWDUIblZtw&s=09

"t isn't the genuine Police SEEN account.
Whoever is behind it has been trying to track down Sandie Peggie's social media and has also been trying to find out the identity of the women doing live tweeting of the case for Tribunal Tweets which has been incredibly stressful for them."

@AlbertCamusflage it's in the case management order linked here:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/edinburgh-employment-tribunal-says-no-to-trans-anonymity-order/

The Scottish Daily Express also published a very clear and fair article on yesterday's proceedings. It shows it can be done and other journalists would do well to learn from the Express's example.

@InvisibleDragon Thank you very much.

Wasn't able to watch today as was doing a house clearance and was v sad I couldn't watch live as yesterday was mind boggling. Thanks to everyone for keeping us informed, and looking forward to Monday! I've watched quite a few of these ETs, and they are real seat of your pants stuff! ( although, utterly horrendous and unfair for the claimant obvs. )

It's like watching delusions bump up against actual reality, and reality pretty much always wins...

What is the situation of Fife and DU being separate respondents but both being represented by JR? Could a conflict of interest arise whereby one of the respondents wants to settle but the other doesn't?

Can somebody medical (though perhaps you just need a better memory) explain to me why the two professional conduct complaints were so bad and, if they were bad, why the complaints weren't flagged immediately?

I thought the NHS had a special complaints system (the one which Dr U and the A&E boss used on 24/5 December)?

Michael Foran thread on twitter explains succinctly for anyone catching up why today was so important and potentially very bad for NHS Fife.

This morning in Peggie v NHS Fife, counsel for Sandie Peggie made an application for further production of documentation which they claimed had not been provided as was required by a judicial order.
Based on what was provided, including doc only disclosed at 9.30pm last night, counsel for Peggie suspect that NHS Fife began and then aborted an initial investigation into Sandie Peggie before starting a second one months after the initial complaint was raised.
Counsel for NHS Fife have denied this but have agreed to rapidly attempt to produce further evidence. It was agreed between both parties that this should be done by Monday.
I think it’s safe to presume that, by virtue of this agreement, counsel for NHS Fife have accepted that full production of evidence had not been done and the judicial order had therefore not been complied with. This is obviously very serious.

Anyone know if Sandie needs help with legal fees? Is there a fundraiser? I’d love to chip in. Given to her father’s charity.