NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #12

[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 February 2025 and was expected to continue for 2 weeks although at the start of the second week getting everything done in this time period was looking less certain. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on Thursday 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: https://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
Thread 6: 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
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11

Oooooh seems DU has said there are more emails DU has not produced to the court!

Sorry - misunderstood

Yes, I think they will be WORIADS though, given the explanations in the EAT ruling

This is so annoying. I am still WFTCHTJ

How many people can you see in the lobby? For those with access?

There are more emails but JR says they are privileged. ie not disclosable.

NC when did you send those? DU I'd have to check NC we have not received this DU I was not asked to disclose this - may have misunderstood NC you're saying there are more emails between you and BMA relating to these matters you have not produced?

Has Dr U been asked to define the word 'all' yet?
'all emails' means 'all emails I identify as relevant emails only'

Isn't better to come out and go back in, or stay in waiting to be let in again? Is there a queue?

Thanks @nauticant

@michaelpforan
·
1m

NC when did you send those? DU I'd have to check NC we have not received this DU I was not asked to disclose this - may have misunderstood NC you're saying there are more emails between you and BMA relating to these matters you have not produced?

I can see another observer with their camera on? Lady with glasses and woolly jumper!

Yes, the EAT ruled that MF's GC beliefs were WORIAD. However, I think @anyolddinosaur meant to refer to TRA beliefs, on which there was no ruling as far as I can see.

Thr BMA stuff was last weds, the rest was from the Jan order.

i'm back to WFTCHTJ having come out.

Well either his legal team have done a poor job of explaining disclosure to him or there has been some withholding of documents…

Thanks for the ongoing updates everyone.

Can a judge order the BMA to disclose the emails?

There is a queue. If you leave then re join you go to the bottom.

Michael Foran twitter/x:

'JR No not answer - emails about wellbeing not been disclosed
J: let's look at the order. Must be any docs "relating to investigations"
JR: but emails about well-being don't fall into category of interactions with SP
J do you say that email to and from BMA fall within order?

NC yes quite clear that whole correspondence with BMA is relating to the investigation
JR That cannot be right - Order is relating to internal investigation - emails about wellbeing are not relating to internal investigation
J if there was an email from DU to RR sending policies etc thought to be relevant do you agree falls within Order'

So that is an untruth from DU. Unlikely he would not have received a copy of the written order.

NC yes quite clear that whole correspondence with BMA is relating to the investigation JR That cannot be right - Order is relating to internal investigation - emails about wellbeing are not relating to internal investigation J if there was an email from DU to RR sending policies etc thought to be relevant do you agree falls within Order

Placemarking

Has he actually definitively answered a single question yet?

I believe this
I'd have to check that
You'd have to ask X Y and Z

Some people need a shake

DU Could be a different personal/work email. Judge asking DU to look and product those emails.

I was thinking that too - he disclosed emails when he was asked to - surely he was told to disclose everything? is he pointing the finger at his legal team for not explaining what he did/didn't have to disclose?

Well the emails must be seen, says the judge... although in rather a sympathetic way to DU

Am I right in thinking DU didn't specify a date or patient for safety allegations nor anything very serious. And yet they suspended her? This is unbelievable! How could they investigate on such a vague basis?