NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #18

[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. However, it is going to overrun and there will be an adjournment with the hearing resuming in July (current best estimate). The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 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 caused by 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
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17

The case is still ongoing. Expect a decision maybe October time.

ED - yes

J - page 58, please. Confirming dates that convo with IB was at the end of August.

ED - best of my recollection

J - what about Maggie Curran convo re SP being uncomfortable

ED - I think I spoke to MC immediately after speaking with IB who told me the same thing

Aargh, fast moving again! Thanking and place marking again.

I agree, but I also think Upton would have been very hard pushed to make a complaint about it, especially as SP would have been complying with a management suggestion.

I think Sandie was entirely justified, and thank goodness someone has finally started to stand up to these invading men, but I think it may not have crossed ED’s mind that Sandie might have been right to do what she did as it wasn’t what ED herself would have done. As I said before, women being assertive has long been framed as aggression. ED sounds like someone who would take the oath of least resistance and probably (unconsciously) condemn women who wouldn’t do the same.

I agree with this, the Supreme Court decision will say how the law should be applied and any subsequent cases will have to refer to that law in their decision making. If the tribunal came to a conclusion that contradicts the law as stated in the SC decision then it would be a clear reason for appeal. The SC isn’t making new law, it’s clarifying the operation of existing law which was in force at the time of the events in this case.

Of course, if the law itself is changed during the period between events and a tribunal case, the decision would have to take into account the legal position as at the time the events took place. So for example, if the law around employment procedures (I am not an employment lawyer so this might be a nonsense example, but hopefully makes the point) changed between the events and the judgment in this case, the tribunal would be applying the law as it stood at the time because clearly the parties couldn’t have anticipated a change in the legally mandated procedure.

lol they won't finish hearing the witnesses until July

Thought it was bullshit

When's that then?

Where on Twitter?

July. Ok.

Delurker here, just saying hello - I've been following all the threads on this. Huge thanks to all those posting. (May your cupboards overflow with Tunnocks teacakes) I did log in to watch NC question Upton - but couldn't bear his insufferable smugness so didn't manage much.
Good to see a few papers reporting this - the headlines alone are excellent 😂

Nope. I have worked / volunteered in the DEI field for about 30 years now and increasingly see graduates straight into a DEI role, making everything 'intersectional', parroting the 'be kind' and 'TWAW' bullshit. Its another reason why I stepped away into a role that is one PC (not sex or gender) rather than the broad DEI I used to do. I know a 'head of EDI' for a large UK public sector organisation who is only 23.

Lol TRA will say anything

J - did MC speak with DU

ED - I don't know

J - your evidence is that DU has a right to use the CRs as you heard from IB

ED - yes, that's what I understood. The understanding that I took from that is that transgender female is entitled to use the female CR.

J - when you spoke to SP, were you simply passing on a decision that had been made or were you part of the decisions

ED - I thought the decision had been made

J - and who do you think made that decision

ED - consultants and IB

J - what did you understand SP

Any idea why the judgement takes so long? Is that usual in an ET?

I really think we'd have heard from DrU if he does indeed hold a GRC. He's been quiet on the matter.

to be doing; raising a grievance, a complaint or an informal enquiry

ED - I understood that SP was asking me to see if that could be changed

J - what was it

ED - it was raising an issue

J - how serious was the issue

ED - I didn't think there was a high possibility of that

Yes - it's not that we have reason to think this one will be especially slow, just that they all seem to be.

happening given shift patterns. I felt that was SPs feelings and I respected that but I took advice from E&D and that was the policy.

J - did you take any notes of those discussion

ED - no

J - when you had the second chat with SP in late October, did you make a note

It'll be interesting.

If the SC goes against biological sex, then we could be in the land of madness where Wes Streeting's position is right side of the public but the wrong side of the law. This is a problem because the law only works with public consent and its clear the public don't think its right that sex is nebulus.

Streeting would therefore have to act to 'save the Darling Nurses' from the clutches of Faraging. Providing he had enough support from the rest of non-numpties in Labour. If he did manage to force it through as a matter of urgency in order to see off any prospective disaster at future polls it also raises a bizare prospect.

This tribunal could find in favour of Upton and co because sex is legally nebulus at the time of his action. Even though Wes has charged into the HoC after the horse has bolted shouting 'It is I, Lord Flashheart! I have arrived', to the public and already Made Sex Biological Again, because a case can only rule on what the law was at the time of someones actions.

Thus Sandie could theorectical lose the case on the basis that sex is legally nebulus even though legally sex is biological.

Its utterly bonkers in every respect.

Especially since not even the woo woo pushers really believe that a male is a woman and demonstrate this in their language and their actions.

*ED - it was raising an issue

J - how serious was the issue

ED - I didn't think there was a high possibility of that*

Oh hindsight's a great thing....

The rest of the tribunal is going to have to be scheduled in July.

'take the oath of least resistance' - great typo, PriOn1, I see them all lined up swearing to never ever challenge that TWAW!

I had more luck - I caught 'I love alone' before I posted it and corrected it to - I live alone.
Though the former might have got me some sympathy on the day that's in it💔😏

ED - no I did not

J - lawyers love bits of paper, how easy is it for you to take time to make a note

ED - my day is extremely busy, I'm responsible for all of the

ED, I get lots of emails, I have lots of Teams meetings, I often don't open email until my tea break so not easy.

It's not that unusual for a non-straightforward case but this is a nightmare of a case and to have to wait 6 months wouldn't be unprecedented. (That's 6 months from the conclusion of the hearing in July, not 6 months from now.)