NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #35

[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-silence-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
Thread 34: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377387-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-34

Yes, I agree - I just realised how wrong my picture of it was, and could vividly imagine SP and others leaving to "make room" for Upton.

Particulars of claim is the document lodged with the court that kicks everything off. probably 20-30 pages long.

We are doing a lot of hypothesizing about what JR and NC are trying to show; the particulars of claim will lay out the detriments SP says she suffered - all of them, in detail, by both respondents. News reports from the time mention harassment, discrimination, breaches of whistleblowing rules etc. But we’re all a bit on the dark on what exactly she’s claiming without that document.

Thanks, makes sense.

I do wonder if there is anything about the racist and homophobia on there, calling her daughter would suggest yes to the homophobia but I'm not sure about the racist accusation.

Here you go - copied from thread #19:

Hopefully I have got this summary right - this is the basis of the legal claim by Sandie Pegg (SP) to the Employment Tribunal:

SP (claimant) is the one who has brought the case to the Employment Tribunal (ET) – naming NHS Fife as Respondent 1 (R1) and Dr Upton as Respondent 2 (R2).

She claims against Dr U personally

• Harassment under EA for being a biological male in the female only CR
• Whistleblowing – her challenge to Dr U in the CR was a “protected disclosure” that led to “detriments” – Dr U punishing her via formal complaints of bullying and harassment etc.

She claims against NHS Fife:

• Harassment under the EA regarding “protected beliefs” – citing a list of 12 timeline events:
• The 3 encounters with Dr U in the CR between Aug & Dec 2023
• Being put on special leave from 30/12/23
• Being suspended on 4/1/24
• Beginning a disciplinary investigation based on Dr U’s complaint
• Continuing SP’s suspension on 2/2/24
• Sought to persuade SP to return to work not at Vic Hospital 7/3/24
• Refused to guarantee SP access to a female only CR 7/3/24
• Extending SP’s suspension pending agreement on shifts 7/3/24
• Requiring SP return to work on day shifts in order to be supervised (due to Dr U’s allegations on concern about patient care) 7/3/24
• Informing SP of an allegation and investigation about patient care 28/3/24
• Failing to progress the disciplinary investigation promptly
• Prohibiting SP from discussing these legal matters/issues at work.
• Harassment under EA as in 2a for letting Dr U use the female CR and permitting other staff to use a CR that aligns with their gender identity
• Victimisation (which I think is the indirect harassment bit?) similar to 3a but with 3 additional “detriments” including being informed of alleged bullying and unwanted behaviours to a colleague, as well as being asked to work day shifts in place of nights.
• Whistleblowing complaint with similar detriments as the victimisation claim in 3c

The NHS/Dr U team have responded to accept that the events listed in the claim happened but the don’t accept the claims of harassment and say that they only allow staff to use CRs based on their gender identity on a case-by-case basis (ie my words: not just any old Tom Dick or Harry can march into the ladies)

The NHS/Dr U allege it was SP who behaved inappropriately and that what she said was not a “protected disclosure” or a “protected act” so the subsequent events were not “detriments” to her (again my words – under the law she wouldn’t qualify for protection against victimisation or whistleblowing)

The NHS/Dr U confirmed that they would not rely on the “all reasonable steps” defence under the EA regarding Dr U’s conduct – saying this claim is vexatious and should not be pursued.

(Sorry the MN text editor has removed my original numbering so there will be some odd references which you can hopefully infer)

I could be wrong (the whole timeline has been confusing) but I think the suspension was about 8 weeks. Yes, I think she was "under investigation" (though it doesn't appear to have gone anywhere) all that time, and at some point it morphed into disciplinary proceedings that included the patient safety allegations. The disciplinary was dragged out for over a year, and she wasn't informed that she was in the clear until last Tuesday evening (and NHS Fife issued a mealy-mouthed statement).

The claim is set out in one of the early Case Management Orders linked on TT substack

Edit sorry someone already copied them above. Highly recommend a browse through those Case Management Orders though as they fill in a lot of the context.

I think she was put on special leave on 30th December 2023, then suspended on 4th Jan - then twice more - so 3 months in total. Maybe April (?) before she got back to work under supervision on weekend day shifts in a different dept. I dread to think how long she would have been suspended if her solicitor hadn't written in February 2024 to say the suspension was unlawful.

In February 2025 the hearing had been due to finish but it was extended due to lack of disclosure and DU's evidence taking a long time. NHS Fife sent SP a letter on/just after the day the tribunal had been due to finish calling her in for a meeting to decide if they were going to sack her?! Then they quickly withdrew this - I think they had set this letter up to be sent assuming they would have completed the tribunal and be set for a win.... oh how little they knew.

Then they continued on with the investigation only exonerating her on 15th July 2025, the night before Part 2 started. Seriously dragged out.

The NHS/Dr U confirmed that they would not rely on the “all reasonable steps” defence under the EA regarding Dr U’s conduct – saying this claim is vexatious and should not be pursued.

This is beautiful. Fife should commission a bespoke embroidery of this and frame and hang it in the female CR.

But is amazing if you fill the groove with crunchy peanut butter.

That's just the peanut butter. Just use a spoon.

But then I can't convince myself I'm eating something healthy!!

Thank you - very helpful. But we don't have the actual particulars of claim document, correct? It would have the full chronology of events, the legal arguments and the precise reasoning for each of the claims. I would expect it to run to about 30 pages.

NC did make a fair bit out of probing whether the source of CMs information was from ‘the statement’, or Datix.

I didn’t get the significance of that. Was the Datix report meaningfully different to DUs statement?

@Boiledbeetle I can't stand celery or crunchy peanut butter. Has to be smooth, seriously 😜

If you want to be healthy, a decent sharp and crunchy apple dipped in peanut butter. 100% peanuts, obs.

Daft question how do bookmarks on MN actually work?
I've only been here about 8 years and never figured it out. But I think it could be useful for these threads ?

I've never tried any of the bells and whistles. I assume if you click on 'bookmark', when you open the thread it goes straight to that point? Which would indeed be useful on this thread!

I've just glanced at the clock and it's K Searle Day already!!😃
Night all.

Whew! Finally caught up. Thanks so much to everyone.

I wish I could say that the revelations of the inner workings, ineptitudes and arse-covering of hospitals and the NHS surprised me, but after more than 40 years as a nurse (mostly in A&E) I'm afraid that's not the case.

See also the Lucy Letby conviction.

CM’s rugby changing room comment didn’t ring true to me, I have lots of female rugby playing friends who it didn’t sound quite right with either. Just do a fb search!

What’s the deal with the racsim/ homophobia accusations? I am very tired, menopausal and time poor, I can’t work out if these are legit or mud slinging. I’m presuming the latter but I’d be grateful for further actual info .

As much as I don’t agree with the right wing anti woke brigade, I would actually find it quite hard to get behind someone who was a racist. Say it isn’t so :(

It isn’t so.

SP is supposed to have used the P* slur to a dr, but said doctor could not remember such a thing happening.

It was described by NC as 'tittle-tattle', and today's witness said it was hearsay, with no evidence, so she ignored it when making her decision to recommend lifting the suspension.

The NHS/Dr U confirmed that they would not rely on the “all reasonable steps” defence under the EA regarding Dr U’s conduct – saying this claim is vexatious and should not be pursued.

What does this mean?

yeah i think its after the fact embellishments if her daughter has come out today and defended her over the homophobic comments i would assume and put money on the racism comments being falsified too!