NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #14

[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 once it was in to the second week it was looking like this would not happen. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on Thursday 6 February.

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

However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently, as a result of a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but don't count on it.

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
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13

Agree. Why on earth didn't she have the rules on hand?

That sounds plausible

Upton has made some rather surprising statements about standard medical practice. NC hasn't been able to refute them because she doesn't have the relevant knowledge. If there's an adjournment of weeks or longer, could she get a medical expert to provide a clarifying statement and get that into the evidence for the panel to consider?

Oh ffs as if any hospital staff call a doctor 'sir'!

I THINK he is trying to argue that SP finds him so loathsome that she will always try to exclude herself? At some point this MIGHT compromise patient safety?

I thought we'd established that they had worked together with quite a few patients?

Happened to my husband after his stroke.

Someone should give Dr U a health check. My advice is not to get it done at the Vic A&E - they misdiagnosed DH's full-blown stroke as a TIA.

Apologies, I'm playing catch up. I'd be interested in the opinion of the lawyers on this thread. Given how DU's evidence is unraveling, is JR in potentially a difficult position in representing both him and Fife? I would anticipate that Fife's account of what DU told them may be very different (given they reported it in internal documents as a 'hate crime') and, if that is the case, I don't see how JR can represent one without dropping the other in the shit.

I can see she can run, on behalf of Fife, "We suspended her because DU told us all this awful stuff, and we thought it credible." Or, on behalf of DU, "I told Fife what I've told you; blame them for how they followed their processes". But if there's a significant mismatch she can't run with both?

(Edited to amend a pronoun. Ironically.)

I'm not sure if thus has been raised at all, but back when I worked in the NHS there would be nothing 'odd' about a senior nurse asking a junior doctor to do obs on a patient.
Is this request not the done thing now, or does DU just have a superiority complex and not like being asked to do things by nurses who he possibly feels are beneath him

I think that makes sense....thankyou.

I just wanted to bring over KnottyAunty 's post from the last thread because I think it's a really good rundown of how Sandie's suspension was mismanaged by NHS Fife.

(sorry Knotty, I don't think it's possible to quote from a previouss thread)

Even if they don't concede that point, they defo broke policy (I don't know how much of the policy is law tho):

1. Staff should be advised of their right to a legal rep at all stages - At the first meeting she was advised by Esther, but that was already too late as the suspension process had started. Notes from that meeting were used in decision making that went against her. Fife can try to claim that this wasn't an "investigation" maybe because they were following their "witch hunt" policy that month instead but it had a lot of features of one being done incredibly badly.
2. Noone should be suspended without them being given full details for the reasons, a time estimate of how long the investigation process, contact person etc. This has to be done in a certain time frame. There is a flow chart and templates for what should be done when. I'm assuming that the templates were not used. JR made a lot about the timings of things and what advice wasgiven when questioning SP. So JR will presumably try to claim they followed the law, but ignored the policy?
3. The details of the investigations should be kept quiet and all parties advised not to speak to their colleagues about it for fairness. SP was out of work suspended, so complied. DU was in work and KS sent her "intemperate" email - thus prejudicing the whole department.
4. The suspension period should be as short as possible. It went on for months with multiple extensions prior to the details of the claims being made against her.

There were other things ... read the policy yourself and see ... IANAL and I need to get some actual work done today!!

Anyone else considering writing a gmc complaint about Dr Uptons lack of urgency when reporting patient safety concerns?

Yup. As well as the absolute batshittery about biological sex and saying he would gaslight and treat a female patient even though they asked for a male.

I wonder if she knows just how badly she's been thrown under the bus here. Argument is DU reported patient safety concern to her so if KS didn't report immediately there's her own FtP to consider...

She won't get any more trans cases if she throws Upton under the bus, however justified.

And yet overriding a woman's request for single sex care isn't compromising patient safety because of his inner lady feelz.

Honestly, I'd know he was a man from the mansplaining alone. I think it's the worst mansplaining I've ever heard. To NC too!

I saw a tweet from Maya saying that at one point JR had interrupted 34 times in 3 and a quarter hours.

I expect she'll tell the truth, and her evidence will contradict his. What I'd like to know is does she realise yet that he's been manipulating her this entire time?

Will have to look back through the transcripts but I think that when faced with difficult truths, DU seems to fall back on 'well, that was my perception of what happened'
Does this sort of reply carry much weight in a tribunal?

In that case, I wish TT would use "re" which means concerning something, rather than "circa" which means approximately.

I think DU reported two safety incidents. For one of them, another ED staff member Rhianna was present and gave witness statement to Fife that supported SP's version.

But DU also reported another incident, on an uncertain date, that no-one else witnessed, and that was either a very serious patient safety issue or a minor communication issue depending on the questioner and the questions asked.

Unreliablewitnessitus?

It's up to the person witnessing the incident to report it through Datix. The line manager/senior medic is not responsible for reporting the incident secondhand. Their job would be to advise how to proceed and to ensure reporting has been done correctly

Nope. There'll be an 'oh!' and the sound of a penny dropping at some point.

Sorry if this has been asked / speculated before - these threads move like lightning!, but has DU given any indication of who he would insist on doing pregnancy tests on prior to sending for surgery? Conscious / unconscious / claiming a trans identity or not? So if a transman with the same level of transition and delusion belief as him came in, would he bypass the test?

Apologies, I'm playing catch up. Around 11.30 this morning NC was referring to a possible adjournment in order to obtain some information from the BMA. Did J agree to this or unknown at present?

Yes but I think he might argue that he had "sought advice" from a more senior colleague and therfore wasn't necessarily under an obligation to datix it, depending on what she said.