NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #34

[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 last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It resumed on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

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] by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions were provided here:

drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view

The hearing is being live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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.ph/WSSjg.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Links to previous threads #1 to #29 can be found in the header of thread #30.

Thread 30: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375337-nhs-fife-tries-to-sil
ence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-30
Thread 31: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375819-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-31
Thread 32: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376072-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-32
Thread 33: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376608-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-33

Anyone with a wikipedia account should probably check this article for accuracy..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggie_v_NHS_Fife

Unlike the others, CM seems consistent, coherent and armed with some integrity.

An odd choice of witness for the respondent. Although I assume SP would have called her if they hadn't. Unless I'm missing something?

From TT

NC: [ref] your letter - esp point 2 - you explain return to day shifts, to allow some oversight, you say oversight of interactions with staff and patients, you explain that there have been some Qs re patients. You knew this was the first SP heard re concern re patients?
CM: Yes had heard of the incident DU claimed re leaving resus patient - but never reported - so my paragraph is about mitigating the risk of any such
NC: You said you did know this was 1st time SP heard re patients?
CM: YEs was told SP was very upset but this was reported to me sort of third hand
NC: Did you talk to SP re this?
CM: Yes I think we spoke on phone - but I said I didn't know much about it - as I say, this is what I mean by the 'oversight' para - to protect SP

Fife NHS sounds like a hotbed of gossip and bitch, especially by those in power. What a horrid place to work if you are not in the 'in' crowd.

But may actually remain employable and prefer to take her chances elsewhere.

Question:

If lots of the female staff had said they didn't want to share the changing room, would they all have been suspended, and then had their shifts changed to one which were less favourable than before?

Was it in the interests of the hospital to ensure no more complaints so they didn't have to make adjustments?

Also has Sandie Peggie been treated less favourably than a man here btw? The man didn't have to change his shift pattern.

I like this witness. I hope she is the person she is presenting to be. She sounds like she was watching Sandie's back.

An enormous great hole in the evidence caused by not calling the witness who approved SPs return to work would force the Tribunal to make adverse inferences and cause far, far more damage to Fife's case than pretty much anything the witness could say.

NC has brought up statement in CM's letter to SP that 'there have been some Qs re patients' which is new, and seems to contradict CM saying there were no risks to anybody.
Is this first time CM has been caught out repeating hearsay like the rest of them?
CM says SP was v upset - not surprisingly, esp if CM had seemed like a supportive, fairminded colleague up to then.

Today isn't looking good for NHS Fife. Strong evidence Sandie was suspended for a lengthy period without cause, based partly on gossip.

This meeting and risk assessment should have taken place in early January.

Someone said that defence usually save their best witnesses until last, so presumably this is something they are trying to hide in the middle.

I'm massively behind the thread and more of a lurker but I'm 27

Yes. Based on her performance today I'm sure other trusts would love to have her

Herald doing some excellent journalism today! Live from Tribunal but linking to other aspects referenced in very useful way. Different from TT as summarised.

I think CM has seen the letter from KS and knows her goose is cooked so all good in terms of spilling the tea.

There is still a little too much I don't recall scattered around very good recollection to reassure me though.

I wonder if CM made the suggestion of SP moving to work with her so she, CM, could watch her back? In addition to gaining a valuable and hardworking nurse.

'Sententious' given to moralising in a pompous or affected manner.

Suddenly reminded of the foxkiller. Not sure why 🤔

It’s very much favouring Upton’s view, but I am reluctant to edit it while the case is ongoing. Also it’s not locked but if contrary edits start appearing the TRAs at Wikipedia will lock it and insist on their view remaining.

NC: Was it your idea to add the allegations re patients to the letter, or did someone tell you to?
.CM: Was told that we needed to explain why oversight needed. And that oversight was a protective measure for SP. And there haven't been any incidents.

We've decided on guilt and the sentence, now what crime would justify it?😠

from herald
2:34pm
We have heard that Sandie Peggie was upset at allegations made regarding patient safety concerns.
Ms Cunningham asks Ms Myles whether she was at all impressed with the patient safety concerns.
No, she replies. She said she was not impressed by the way they had been raised. She said that she had concerns that protocols were not followed in terms of escalating or report these alleged incidents.
Ms Cunningham asks whether failing to report a potential walk out on a patient was a "serious" breach of conduct.
If life is at risk and this is not reported accordingly, then the people involved in not reporting that should be investigated, Ms Myles said.

As NC is not a KC, she is a junior. So what we have on SP's side is a senior junior (NC) leading a junior junior (CE). CE is there to assist NC and learn. It is not uncommon to find a senior junior leading a junior junior. Equally, it is not uncommon for a KC to handle a case without a junior. The only rule is that a junior barrister cannot lead a KC.

Add links and discussions on the talk page that corroborate the truth, that will mean when other slow later there is a wider evidence base.

Right now it's straight up not true in places right?

NC: Is it a reasonable inference that you were being told to include the patient safety allegations bcs more senior people were desperate to have a reason for the initial suspension, and to have the day shifts pushed to make that look more convincing?

Me and NC - one mind in two bodies😁

Who called her?

There's two respondents who can put names forward.
Dr Upton and NHS Fife.

Here's that potential conflict of interest going on again.

Upton might have wanted to have the Flying Monkeys testify, but NHS Fife might want this witness.

Plus if they didn't then NC might have put them forward anyway. Putting them up is supposed to be a damage limitation exercise by justifying decisions.

Both parties potentially muddy the waters by putting both up tbh. It makes it less clear cut for the judge.

Either way, there's certain individuals who look EVEN MORE incompetent and vindicative on the basis of the testimony today.

From TT

NC: Was it your idea to add the allegations re patients to the letter, or did someone tell you to?
CM: Was told that we needed to explain why oversight needed. And that oversight was a protective measure for SP. And there haven't been any incidents.
NC: You were not impressed by the patient safety allegations.
CM: No. Not impressed. Things should be reported, escalated, and done at the time. The staff who spoke to me re the allegations knew my stance on that. I told them they were culpable, if patients didn't get the care.

Fifer : see what ah mean? TELT. Come tae me bitching - TELT. Allegations unreported - TELT. TELT that you're the bampot in this story, and what are you gonnae dae aboot it. Ye want to step up tae the Wolf ae St Margarets? Sit doon and take yet tellin, an haud yet wheest and stay TELT.

NC: And if you are told a nurse is so transphobic she will walk out on a resus patient, failing to report and escalate that is itself quite a serious misconduct and FtP issue?

Fifer : can a jist say, that "if" is daein mair work than Salmond's combover (god rest his soul)

CM: If there was a genuine concern re a resus patient and not reported then yes that is something that should be investigated.
NC: When SP coming back to work, no evidence for any patient safety concerns at all./
CM: Not in any of the parts of the process that I was involved in,
NC: Is it a reasonable inference that you were being told to include the patient safety allegations bcs more senior people were desperate to have a reason for the initial suspension, and to have the day shifts pushed to make that look more convincing?
CM: No - the day shift suggestion was one of the things I came up with. And wd have been a cooling-off period

Fifer : ah tell ye, Wolf Lottie jist batted that awa for six. NC needing a different angle a hink

NC: Your letter of 28/3 - re day shifts and supervising - the only reason for it wd be patient safety claimed reasons?
CM: Not really - wd always suggest days for a phased RtW bcs that's when line managers etc are around. So first month wd usually be days.
NC: Presumably all the steps the board took, that you took, around the suspensions. All unwanted by SP? Wd be unwanted by anyone.
CM: Yes unwanted but the transparency was important - to ensure that SP safe and everyone else - for SP's good too

Another possibility is to pay the Herald its £1 & follow their livefeed which is working well.
Also gets their articles, which are on the nail

CM is really supporting Sandie now. I'd never have guessed

CM going above and beyond in some ways that may not please JR or the respondents.