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

DH a question for Mr Fraser. Other document we can see leaflet ‘your rights’. ‘Our rights’ ‘Advisors’ sets out conditions for a member taking independent legal advice. Also ‘legal representation’ second paragraph, refer to RCN website and ‘care letter’
NP the contract letter

It's an interesting system - don't tell your member they need legal advice, wait til they go elsewhere and then turn them down for getting independent legal advice...

It's the locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard approach that's been referred to more than once.

DH p 785-7
NP screenshot of RCN website
DH employment tribunal claims, reference earlier. Who can access the site?
NP publicly available. A paywall.
DH AN RCN member has access?
NP yes with a membership number
DH you mentioned not involved in individual cases. How did you come to be aware of SP.
NP Jo (?) sent me an email to speak to Margaret Gribbon.

Probably not.

I think Pete The Covid Denying Plumber might be making a visit during the cross by NC...

A suspicious person, which obviously none of us are! Would wonder whether it was deliberate.

We spoke later.
DH what did you understand from the conversation?
NP they were considering an ET on her behalf. She said she’d like the union to work with her.
DH you got more involved into start of 2025. Page 400 of bundle please. We have an email chain. Mr Fraser emails you 3.1.25 Ms Gribbon to Mr Fraser.

Yes, I do hope going forward they're extremely front and centre about the existence of this policy. So people can make informed decisions about whether to pay their subs or not.

He's definitely due an outing.

😂

DH request made on SP behalf for assistance from RCN. Was that the first you heard via Mr Fraser?
NP I don’t recall a conversation with Stuart prior. After the emails I had a conversation

[is this where SF get thrown under a bus?]

If the RCN win, it'll send out the message to them that they can continue not to help members who are in trouble for being gender critical and to members that it's not worth seeking their help in this area. Instead they should go elsewhere, for example to the FSU.

DH how quickly after?
NP can’t recall but normally quite quickly.
DH would SF be in the Edinburgh office?
NP mostly work from home, possibly once a month. My recollection was SF asked if RCN would provide support. I said likely not as not, didn’t come within the rules. My decision.

Well, that might come back to haunt him.

Have there been any cases where the RCN has helped a man claiming to be a woman? I cant remember but did Rose at Darlington get help from them when it kicked off about him being in the women's changing room?

DH did you give an indication over the phone.
NP I don’t recall but normally yes I would.
DH when did you reach the view re legal support.
NP usually within 24 hours of an email
DH what was your conclusion whether legal assistance?
NP we could not provide. 1. I felt the ask for a second ET was linked to the previous ET forthcoming 2. SP had already taken legal advice and I applied our rules as I would to any case.

So you would be a member of union A or union B depending on your position regarding the law (abiding or refusing). We live in strange times indeed.

No he is answering a direct question.

The point is SP had to seek external advice because SF was not receptive to her being discriminated against because he was looking through a GI lens. This has been proven, by previous witnesses.

SF advice to SP is basically you are likely to be guilty we will help you suck it up.

DH email you set out your reasoning. Accurate?
NP yes.
DH a lapse of time 3.1. 25 17.1.25.
NP my availability. Also we had external training with legal advisor.
DH how close date?
NP a few days
DH you formed an initial view, over that 2 week period were you mulling over or not?
NP no, I was content with decision. I was mulling over whether to suggest additional information. Having said we wouldn’t advise I was straining because morally the right thing to do. In another different case there were a similar situation and here I was testing whether it was right to advise her to add to her existing tribunal than run a second one.

Is there a good alternative union which nurses could join? I know Unison are TWAW and the Darlington nurses had to form their own union.

A good friend of mine is a Unison rep, and although she hasn't worked in healthcare she does go to Unison meetings which are held in our local big hospital, presumably because it's convenient for most of their reps.

I will ask her that question. She knows I am interested in sex-realist ideas but I don't feel able to have a deep discussion about Unison, though.

Also by continuing to engage with the RCN it would consume time and resources when they need to be spent focusing on the fact that a critical time limit is approaching.

DH at the time were you aware of her beliefs as GC or sex realist. Did that have any bearing?
NP I was aware of her beliefs and that they were protected. No bearing.
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.

To be honest I didn’t think SPs evidence was strong. However, if an early email was not correctly sent I.e. the To line had a case ref not an email address then it might explain why SP didn’t engage as much with SF as I would have expected.