NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #54

[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 was 29 July 2025. It resumed again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give more evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to: [email protected].

The hearing was 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 #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 51: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 from 3 September

As @Bannedontherun says, the outcome of the investigation is irrelevant. An employer is entitled to investigate an employee if they reasonably suspect that the employee may have committed a disciplinary offence. If the investigation clears the employee, it doesn't mean the investigation was invalid or that the employee is entitled to compensation. One of the questions the tribunal will have to decide is whether Fife's actions against SP were due to her protected beliefs or due to the way she acted. The fact that her beliefs were protected and that her whistleblowing actions were also protected doesn't give her the freedom to express those beliefs any way she wants.

That cannot, in my view, justify things like Kate Searle sending an email to all consultants condemning SP without even troubling to find out SP's version of events. And the fact HR advised that suspending SP was a bad move won't help them. But some of their actions may have been justified by the allegations made by Upton, notwithstanding the fact that those allegations appear to have been untrue.

I think that is why Upton is a dependent because he prompted all of this with his big fat fibbers.

Tsk defendant

Thanks @Bannedontherun @prh47bridge
I hadn’t understood that the outcome of the investigation didn’t have any bearing here but that makes perfect sense now

Do we know if Upton is back at work? The last I heard was that Sandie was signed off with stress.

Though I accept the employer has every right to carry out an investigation if they believe that someone’s behaviour has been unacceptable…in Sandie’s case, I think the fact that no one actually bothered to speak to her or ask about what she believed had happened for such a long time makes it unlikely that this argument could be seen as valid.

They weren’t carrying out an investigation, but a witch-burning.

Wouldn’t the disciplinary process have to detail exactly what was being alleged and what was being investigated? Wouldn’t there be TORs for the IO? If all that is still unclear I think it speaks volumes.

Not a legal person, but it has seemed clear all along that this was at least part of their argument.

The news that Sandie was cleared of all charges of gross misconduct was correct, and it made all the headlines because her legal team had been engaging the press and dropping them consistent headlines all year, and they were delighted to have another pop at NHSFife before the tribunal had even opened its doors in July.

The disciplinary outcome, as published by NHSFife, more parsimoniously announced that "a disciplinary hearing found insufficient evidence to support misconduct allegations against nurse Sandie Peggie, clearing her of gross misconduct. No formal sanction was imposed, though a facilitated reflective practice discussion was deemed appropriate. "

The press didn't care very much about Sandie's ludicrous reflectivepractice punishment, and it was all eclipsed by Fife republishing repeatedly over the following weekend its epic briefing, making extraordinary allegations about NC, Sex Matters and the Information Commissioner for Sctland.

But the Bananarama defence was all set up, and now we will just have to wait for Judge Kemp to have his moment of triumph when he rips into it all on decision day.

We haven't heard anything more about Upton. His disappearance is actually the one thing that could un-peak me. There seems to be at least an outside chance that trans people may indeed be literally 'erased' by GC views because Dr Upton is now nowhere to be seen! 😂

Has nobody posted about this yet?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kirkcaldy-b2836896.html

NHS Fife now says staff should use toilets based on biological sex

That's pretty big news.

EDIT: oh sorry, you all have. I'm just late to the party. SIlly me!

Do we actually know if this ridiculous ‘facilitated reflective practice discussion’ has already happened? I’m under the impression, although I may be quite wrong, that it was put in as a bit of a face-saver for NHS Fife, and could easily apply to a conversation that has already taken place.

Just musing, really.

Ooops.
More Sad times for NHS Fife.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25510643.nhs-rebuked-sandie-peggie-tribunal-costs-secrecy

Sorry, it won't let me share the full article? It's worked, before.

A Redditor’s take on Naomi, as seen on twitter

It wouldn't take much to be far more competent and organised than the GLP, to be honest, so I'm not sure that's the compliment that Redditor thinks it is.

We are finding out though, that after two decades of Stonewall law, it is having to be unpicked step by step. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruling......

Doesn't the fact that SP was cleared of misconduct regarding the Xmas Eve changing room encounter mean that the claim of objectionable manifestation of GC views must fail?

No, it does not. If Fife reasonably believed there was a credible case that she manifested her beliefs in an objectionable way, they were entitled to investigate her and may have been entitled to suspend her whilst the investigation was ongoing. The fact that the investigation cleared her does not necessarily mean they were wrong to investigate, or that they were wrong to suspend. The question for the tribunal is whether Fife's actions were because of SP's expressing her gender critical beliefs or due to the way she allegedly addressed Upton.

Is the question of whether Fife believed that there was a credible case about the way she manifested her beliefs going to form the substance of the action against Searle and Co?

From what we have seen at the Tribunal, the one witness to a a Peggie/Upton conversation supported Sandie Peggie. The rest is all tittle tattle.

The way she addressed Upton was considered by the internal investigation & she was cleared of wrongdoing. As the internal investigation cleared her of any objectionable manifestation of her GC beliefs it seems an odd argument to put forward at the ET when Fife have already confirmed there was no objectionable manifestation.

I don't think it can have already taken place because SP hasn't been back to work.

I also don't think it can take place at all and am writing to the NMC to ask them to respond more broadly on the matter. I think Fife is breaching the NMC expectations on employers of its registrants, and is also very publicly undermining the quite separate NMC professional development activity that Angela Glancy has hijacked for Fife's disciplinary purposes.

No, she was cleared of gross misconduct. Read the statement on Fife's website about the requirement for SP to undertake a reflective practice discussion. Fife is wrong to undermine the NMC's development process in that way, and may have to climb down entirely later, but the disciplinary outcome as it stands did not find SP entirely blameless.

No, it is not an odd argument at all.

They are saying in the tribunal that the way SP was treated was due to the allegations she had expressed her beliefs in an objectionable way. SP is saying that her treatment was due to her beliefs, not the way she expressed them. The fact that Fife's investigation has concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct does not change that or undermine their case.

If Fife's treatment of SP was because they thought there were credible allegations she had expressed her gender critical beliefs in an objectionable way, that would justify some or all of their actions. They are therefore absolutely right to run this argument in tribunal.

My personal view is that the evidence shows this was a witch hunt, that SP's treatment was due to her protected beliefs and that Fife (or at least some in senior positions within Fife) would have regarded any manifestation of those beliefs as objectionable. But we wait to see what the tribunal makes of it.

Would this be more accurate...

They (Fife) WERE therefore absolutely right to run this argument in tribunal, up to the point the male doctor who wanted to be in spaces with vulnerable women proved himself to be a liar and an exagerator in the witness box, at which point they should have conceded defeat.

They (Fife) utterly messed up by allowing the male doctor who wanted to be in spaces with vulnerable women to share their counsel.

I'm very much hoping for some Jo Phoenix-style "We do not find X to be a credible witness" action from Big Sond when he writes his judgment.