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

Would it be the Judge who has the whistle. 😂

Thanks all! Yes, I like the red/yellow card idea and the judge with the whistle, too.

(Thanks BB for continuing c&ping - I'm still only dropping in and out.)

One of the Darlington Nurses spoke of being a member of another union, Unison I believe, and they didn't help her either, despite having paid subs for about 30 years.

Pointing at The Other Side and singing, to the tune of Guantanamera
'Shit and you know it, your case is shit and you know it'
[usually 'your goalie', psych warfare to unsettle him. Sic, as I don't suppose it happens in women's footie].

Does everyone else in the whole world, except me up to fairly recently, know that the word Guantanamera means 'the girl from Guantánamo'??

DH says he has another 20 minutes or so with this witness. Do we know how long NC expects she'll be?

I thought it sounded like members get told at the point a case is taken on that if they get legal advice elsewhere then....
But I thought they never took Sandie's case on first time round, so she may not have been told? I thought it never got past SF saying "enjoy your holiday, bully" (paraphrasing.) I don't recall there being mention of him having verbally told her when he called her?

Then the second request for support, for the second NEW case, was denied because she already had legal advice for the first case. (Which she only had because SF responded to her as a perp, rather than a victim.) And although the cases are connected, NP didn't actually look into any of the detail to decide if that was an issue.

Yesterday someone pointed out that the FSU witness said the RCN did pick up a case late on and after support from FCU had got their claim in. So there does seem to be some discretion.

Ipanemera?

We’re beginning the second session of the morning from Day 3 of Sandie Peggie vs RCN. Norman Provan from RCN continues as the witness. David Hay is barrister for the Respondent (RCN).

DH 24.2.25 email. Reference to document on the case. Quote from it do you have any recollection , but I can’t see it.
NP don’t recall
DH 3rd March. SP responded to points you made. Did you have any awareness of whether she’d received the leaflet?
NP that was my understanding she’d received it. Also I asked Stuart (missed)
DH evidence from Lisa Mackenzie. What sort of working relationship did you have?
NP good. A good member of staff my colleague worked more closely.

Just trying to plan my afternoon so I don't miss the appearance of Colin the Covid Denier.

If they are relying on SP having taken legal advice, thereby knowingly dis-entitling herself to RCN support, what about 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?

The answer is unclear as reported on TT-
NP to me it means someone not aware, but if they were aware, that is the distinction.

Did he mean that if someone took legal advice without being aware that it would stand against them as far as Unions representation was concerned, the RCN could choose to go ahead and support them?
How would they determine whether or not a member was 'aware' or not?
As far as I recall, SP was not aware that when she spoke to a solicitor, she was waving goodbye to union support.

😂
I was wondering myself if the Guantanamera was tall and tan and..😄

DH what parts of the Edinburgh headquarters do members have access to?
NP suite of rooms, actual staff are based beyond the locked door.
DH re LM there was an investigation in 2019. How did you come to be involved? NP Lisa had a period on annual leave, family member unwell. Teresa Fife asked me if I’d be involved rather than Lisa waiting
DH any decision to follow on after the investigation and what material involved? NP investigation had concluded. I substituted for the manager, the conclusion part.
DH Reference to ‘getting it over and done with’ - to what extend did LM have a choice of whether to wait?

The FSU did say that they had done pleadings which someone had taken to the RCN and got support from them. I imagine they'll refuse to discuss that case or say that they didnt realise legal advice had been taken or that the person putting forward the pleadings was unaware of the rule about getting other legal advice.

Did he mean that if someone took legal advice without being aware that it would stand against them as far as Unions representation was concerned, the RCN could choose to go ahead and support them?

That is exactly what I thought he said. It would also be the right thing to do.

NW's tweet said this

'DH let's go back to p118 - it says RCN "may" decide not to represent you. Why did you reach the decision not withstanding the "may"
NP I did it because it is what I do in every single case where people have taken legal advice by their own choice. I only apply "may" if people didn't know about our rule. But not if they ought to have known or did know.'

So yeah clear as cocoa.

I’m missing something. Why is “our way or the highway” the right thing to do?

NP The decision was to whether any work being done outside that would impact RCN. I decided LM had breached her contract , a technical breach, not maliciously done.
DH you set out your reasoning in letter.
NP yes
DH last page 731. You set out in some detail what was in your mind when reaching the decision. A letter of concern to be issued?
NP a note on Lisa’s file setting out any action to be taken.
DH why appropriate to issue a letter?
NP Lisa had been passive in setting out her declaration of interest form. Her manager could have been more proactive too. Needed to set out difficulties to Lisa, including her own social media.

[!!!]

Hmm RCN barrister is accidentally leading NP to tie himself in a discretionary knot.

That suggests that there are certain invisible lines that the RCN will enforce harshly.

To borrow from Lisa Mackenzie's evidence, imagine if the matter in issue she'd been involved with had been another contentious matter, for example a woman's right to choose.

NP Lisa might come into contact with prison service staff she had criticised. Important that her role at RCN was highly differentiated from other work.
DH were you aware LM held GC views and did that influence your decision?
NP not at all. I was aware but not influenced at all.

She did not criticise prison service staff, just policy.

In other words, we must not do anything that might upset the Scottish government, that bastion of gender critical thought.

DH you mentioned you had a good working relationship with LM. Were you aware of any impact after this process?
NP not aware of a relationship change in any way.
DH the article in question were you aware of it?
NP only the day before.
DH an article advancing POV and critiques.
NP yes
DH to what extent the content influenced your decision?
NP the content was irrelevant, the question was whether she’d breached her contract.
DH clause 11 of the contract

What I meant was that when someone took legal advice without being aware that it would stand against them that the RCN still supporting them was the right thing to do.

In my view the RCN should still support its members even if they have taken legal advice already. They could say we cant work with other solicitors so you'll have to pick whether its private or ours but not ethical to refuse any support.