Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

[nauticant]

TLDR version: Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing is currently being heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and is scheduled to end on Thursday 1 October 2026.

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims were of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claimed 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 after a prolonged process judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025. That judgment is being appealed and an appeal hearing is expected to take place in 2027.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against the Royal College of Nursing, against three senior managers who were witnesses in the employment tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. In addition, Sandie Peggie is being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council over fitness to practice.

The past proceedings were live tweeted by www.x.com/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in current and future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/.

Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 60: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461133-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-60 16 December 2025 to 8 January 2026

Thread 61: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-61 8 January 2026 to 3 August 2026

Thread 62: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-62 3 August 2026 to 24 September 2026

Didn’t the judge make a comment about Dr U ‘looking’ feminine? As ground for accepting him as a woman? Or did I dream that up?

I broadly agree with this.

On point 1, the email Sandie never received is interesting. I doubt we will ever know why she didn't receive it. Unless there is evidence to show that it was never actually sent or that it is a recent invention, I would be surprised if the tribunal made any finding on that point. However, it does raise the question as to why RCN never followed it up. Surely they would normally ensure the member had received and responded to it.

Then there is the refusal to support Sandie's legal action. As you say, was that refusal reasonable and consistent with their policies. Also, are the policies applied rigidly or do they exercise some discretion when applying them. If they use their discretion, was they way they exercised it in this case reasonable and, importantly, not for discriminatory reasons.

Point 2 is the real nub of the case. Were any of RCN's decisions because the case was about her GC beliefs? If Sandie can establish a prima facie case that RCN discriminated against her due to her beliefs, it will then be up to RCN to show that their decisions were taken for legitimate reasons.

Re point 3, yes, Sandie does have to show that she has suffered detriment, but that is not an issue. If RCN should have supported her legal action, their failure to do so provides all the detriment required. It left Sandie having to find her own legal advice and fund it herself - the fact that a benefactor has actually provided the funding is irrelevant.

Moving on to points 4 and 5, suspension is supposed to be a neutral action. On its own it does not mean that management has chosen a side. However, it is clear from the evidence in Sandie's case against NHS Fife and Upton that many of those in senior roles in her employer made up their minds without bothering with little things like evidence and giving her a fair hearing. RCN should have been all over that. The question is whether Sandie was treated differently because the case was about her GC beliefs.

Looking at the case so far, I think NC is doing a good job of showing that RCN is captured and is not a welcoming place for those with GC beliefs. I note that some of the witnesses she called are also taking action against RCN. This tribunal won't want to prejudge the outcome of those cases, so it will be interesting to see how they approach this. However, if the tribunal accepts that RCN is captured, that is a prima facie case that they may have discriminated against Sandie. The question then is whether they can show that they have not.

Tomorrow we hear from the Darlington nurses. They are also likely to see that the union offered them no useful advice. We have already heard that they pushed one employee out for not toeing the party line. The council isnt going to prejudge other cases but NC is doing a good job of showing RCN was captured.

On point 1, the email Sandie never received is interesting. I doubt we will ever know why she didn't receive it. Unless there is evidence to show that it was never actually sent or that it is a recent invention, I would be surprised if the tribunal made any finding on that point. However, it does raise the question as to why RCN never followed it up. Surely they would normally ensure the member had received and responded to it.

I seem to remember one witness being questioned about why a number appeared on the court's copy of the e-mail (SP's membership number?) where her e-mail address would normally be.

Might be hallucinating. I'll have to look through the transcript when I get time but does anyone else remember this exchange?

Yes, something about if she knew her membership no.

Just looking through the transcript and saw this

DH p118. Headed’other advisors’. Second sentence ‘a member chooses to take other advice, the RCN may decide not to represent you’. Not a hard and fast rule. Why did you decide?

NP to me it means someone not aware, but if they were aware, that is the distinction.

This seemed very weak to me - a special rule so that it the member really, really, truly did not realise that the union would abandon them if they took external advice, then they could overlook the transgression.

I agree, I’m just catching up a day’s worth of posts and a certain poster has managed to derail the thread for a full day. I strongly suspect that this poster had a different username during the Peggie/Fife tribunal. The writing style is the same. Can’t say more as I’ve had my hands slapped by the MN Admin recently so I’m on best behaviour.

On the mysterious number....what I heard.

The copy of the email that was in the productions bundle (provided by the Rs) had a number in what appeared to be the addressee line. It wasn't an email address ,which is what you would expect.

DH asked SP about the number, suggesting it might be her membership number and that her email address was somehow 'coded' into the membership number. Implying that if you put someone's membership number into the addressee line it would email it to the member.

NC then asked SP on further examination if she knew her membership number, after a somewhat comical exchange, it wasn't the number in the addressee line but it was elsewhere on the form.

Do they not have an electronic trail through the email system? Emails don't dissolved into the ether when sent.....In a normal Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, “it was sent” is usually provable from message trace + audit log, even if the user deleted Sent Items. “This exact text and attachment went out” is proven by archive/journaling/legal hold.

If all they have is a copy of a sent email from someone's email, that's very weak evidence.

Found it in Tribunal tweets - start of Day 1

NC - the email RCN say they sent to you - look at to box
Number men anything?
SP - No
Would you expect to be addressed that way?
No.

From Genderblog

It seems that the RCN did open a case as we have evidence they composed and probably sent a letter to Peggie via email advising her of just that. The problem is Peggie never received it. This is either because the letter was emailed to the wrong address (most likely), was not emailed at all (possible) or did not exist at the time it is suggested it was created (unthinkable). Either way, the letter itself clearly states that the RCN will support Peggie, it will indemnify her against any costs incurred at this stage and it will raise, or help her raise a legal case against her employer. It is a fairly standard letter and comes with the usual caveats, such as the warning that:

“if it becomes clear to the local RCN office that your claim has no reasonable prospect of success or you have been made an offer, we feel you should accept, but you wish to continue your claim, our agreement to indemnify you in respect of the above costs may be withdrawn. We may also withdraw our agreement if we feel you are making unreasonable demands on RCN services. These decisions rest with the local RCN office. If we believe that your case requires a claim to an employment tribunal, we will make a referral for you to RCN legal services to assess whether your case has reasonable prospects of success and meets our minimum value threshold.“

Had Peggie received this letter (assuming the RCN sent it) her case, and indeed career, might be on a very different trajectory. The mystery is why no one, including her rep, Stuart Fraser, checked receipt, followed it up and chased a response.

The explanation that no follow up was sent because the original e-mail was never sent does seem possible.

I’m afraid I don’t find this remotely persuasive.
Yes, a 300+ page judgment contained a number of citation errors which were subsequently corrected. Courts have a correction procedure precisely because judgments can contain mistakes.

None of the corrections reverses the factual findings we are actually discussing. The tribunal heard the witnesses, preferred Dr Upton’s evidence regarding the Christmas Eve encounter, rejected the claim that she had falsely accused Peggie of harassment, and dismissed the claims against her personally.

If someone has evidence that one of those factual findings was subsequently withdrawn or corrected, by all means produce it.

Several posters have mentioned that a union rep might have a corridor convo or some other direct contact with the employer. Is that process less official / does it leave less of a paper trail than the question of indemnifying for legal action? Are we expecting a rep to enlighten us on what happened there?

I think the interesting issue for me is the jump from evidence about the RCN’s wider institutional culture to the burden of proof in Sandie’s individual claim.

Evidence that the RCN was hostile or unreceptive to gender-critical views could obviously form part of the evidential picture. But surely it isn’t, by itself, enough to establish that any particular decision affecting Sandie was because of those beliefs. There still needs to be something connecting that background to the specifics here .

That seems particularly important with the legal-support decision because Provan’s evidence is quite specific: he says the request was refused because RCN rules excluded support where a member had already obtained external legal advice, and that Sandie’s beliefs played no part in it. So I would have thought the really useful evidence would be how that rule operates in practice: whether it is genuinely rigid, whether exceptions/discretion are normally exercised, and how members in comparable situations have been treated.

If the rule was consistently applied in that way, the wider evidence about the RCN’s stance may not get Sandie very far on causation. If it turns out the rule was flexible and she was treated unusually, then the surrounding evidence might become more significant.

Could RCN be asked to provide proof that the missing email was actually sent or is it now too late to request it?

I think that noise we hear is the search going on at RCN HQ.

Seriously, I would think that a barrister as experienced as David Hay would tell them to find it.

Yes they can at the discretion of the court

Indeed.

he didn’t seem to think anyone would necessarily think he was a man. Specsavers is calling.

If the missing email is thought to be pivotal by the Judge, she might order them to produce it, if they sent it, they should be able to produce it. Might take some work but all things considered I'm surprised they haven't dug it out already.

This is a discrimination claim. Because it is always difficult for any claimant to prove discrimination, there is a two stage reverse burden of proof test.

The claimant has to show that there are facts from which the tribunal could infer that discrimination has taken place. In considering whether the claimant has met this, the tribunal can look at evidence from all sources, not just the claimant's evidence.

If the tribunal accepts that the claimant has established the required facts, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent. They have to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, their treatment of the claimant was not in any way related to their protected characteristics.

In terms of this case, evidence that RCN is hostile to GC views may be enough to allow the tribunal to infer that decisions could have been taken for that reason. Sandie does not have to prove that this was the reason for the decisions. It is up to RCN to prove that this was not the reason.

In applying any policy, an organisation like RCN always has discretion as to how that policy should be applied in particular circumstances. I think the evidence suggests the decision in this case could have gone either way. If the tribunal agrees, it is up to RCN to prove that their refusal to provide support was not due to Sandie's GC views.

I’ve been in a disciplinary hearing where the RCN withdrew their support during the meeting when the nurse being investigated mentioned that she had been advised by a solicitor.

The rep left the room to make a phone call then returned saying she could no longer represent the nurse, she agreed to stay and provide moral support for that meeting but in subsequent meetings including the one where the nurse was dismissed she was unrepresented.

This was nothing politically contentious, standard fitness to practice due to sickness.

I was actually thinking about it from the point of NC requesting it but thinking further she wouldn't request evidence that could prove it was sent when the numbers in the address currently suggest it may not have been sent.

Yes but to get through the first bit it isn't enough to say that discrimination could have happened. The claimant must establish facts from which a reasonable tribunal could properly infer that the treatment was discriminatory; a mere possibility of discrimination, isn’t enough on its own.

therfrore evidence of wider hostility within the RCN to gender-critical views could certainly be relevant background, but I’d have thought there still needs to be some evidential link between that background and the particular decisions concerning Sandie.

Also I don't think it's sufficient to say discretion can always be applied- I think the wording of the policy and how it is normally applied would be important to establish whether SP's treatment was unusual.

Was there mention of SP finding something in her Spam? If so, what was it?
I was dipping in and out at work so not fully following so may have got that wrong!

It seems odd to leave a member with no representation at all - I could understand if there was some sort of ongoing advice from a third party but from your description this was not the case.

From memory, in the SP case, haven't they already covered another situation where third party advice was given to a member but the RCN still chose to still give legal support?

Back to the transcript....

DH was asking SP if she'd checked her spam folder

From TT

DH an email that attached the letter that indicates that the RCN has opened the case, you have no recollection of receiving this email
SP that's correct
DH do we see on page 322, the heading of this letter in bold face, re your case, the same number in the subject heading as in
the 'to' line.
SP yes
DH I suggest that it would be your membership number, and it includes your email address, did you take any steps to see if this found it's way to your junk mail
SP I've got no idea