Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #64

[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: www.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 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

Thread 63: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63 24 September 2026 to 27 September 2026

DH what do you recollect re SP beliefs?
SF SP went through what happened with Dr Upton she said ‘this is like having a man in a woman’s prison’. The Isla Bryson rapist case was in the news. she said a man shouldn’t be in a woman’s changing rooms. There was no specific guidance that would when stopped Dr Upton being in the changing room. Wanted to explore what had been acted on.

[!!!]

DH what was your understanding of what SP wanted?
SF support during investigation
DH any reference to GC or sex realist views?
SF only the context of Isla Bryson case

Are RCN really going with "SP didn't say gender critical/sex realist so how were we to know it was a protected belief" as their defence?

When did he say that?

Nick Wallis may have more info on what exactly SF just said in regards to IB as a bit seems to be missing.

DH once call had finished, how frequently in touch with her?
SF I would ordinarily advise a member it would be sent by case management with my contact details
DH did you say that on this call
SF that’s how I would usually end the call

DH did you say that on this call
SF that’s how I would usually end the call

I will infer no from that swerving response.

DH did you say that on this call
SF that’s how I would usually end the call

Squirrelly

Still not v clear:

DH when SP told you why did you conclude the man in a woman'e prison comment might be why she was suspended

SF remember the case being high profile - think it was a reference to Isla Bryson and the ind in that case was a convicted rapist and from my recollection I remember saying something along the lines I had seen it on the news.

DH do you recollect SP saying anything about holding any beleifs or partic set of beliefs

SF no I mean she said in regards to that specific case that she felt a man shouldn't be in the women's changing rooms. My understanding at the time was there was no policy in place specific to NHS but guidance from the EHRC and the EA wouldn't have stopped Dr Upton from being in there. I think we spoke about that SP had raised concerns previously and I wanted to explore that more in the cours e of the investigation about what habeen reported and what had been actions

DH from the call with SP what understanding did you have of a the sort of support she was looking for from you or the RCN

SF support with representation through the process of the investigation

DH do you recollect any ref of the views that might be called GC or sex realist
SF not in those words. no Again the only think now in hindsight that I could say to that to was in ref to the IB case.

DH did you understnad SF wanted anything more that rep in the workplace

SF not to my knowledge - no

...

DH what next steps would you usually expect?
SF info, advice re investigation.
DH case contact /opening letter standard?
SF yes
DH leaflet in Norman’s evidence. How letter and leaflet are sent? P 321. Email from Donna McHone (?) administrator and is that usually how these documents are sent?
SF yes

Here we go...

.

I did a lot of work with various Trades Unions over many years. It was understood across them that you didn't commit anything to paper/email that you weren't prepared to answer to in an E.T.

DH ‘to’ of the email is just a number and the same as the case reference number. Doesn’t look like an email address
SF when we generate a case it generates a number. It assigns it to a case management system. If you go into that it shows you the email it sent to

So what?

Why is their distress not for them to manage, rather than be pandered to by lying to them?

SF doesn’t seem to be capable of actually listening to people.

So still no actual proof it was sent then? Or did I miss it?

That explains nothing.

DH ‘to’ of the email is just a number and the same as the case reference number. Doesn’t look like an email address
SF when we generate a case it generates a number. It assigns it to a case management system. If you go into that it shows you the email it sent to
DH another page, smaller type has a case ID is that right?
SF yes
DH So looking at the destination is a number would that give you concern?
SF no would go into the case management system.

Why wasn't the proper email with the correct address in the bundle then?

Why is he treating the case management system as some infallible system that captures all information about a case when it most definitely won't.

SF we have knowledge of how the system works.
DH not disputed the next contact you had was 5th February. Via email.
SF yes
DH When did you become aware SP had contacted solicitors?
SF When I heard contacted Margaret G . I forwarded info on.
DH email on 5th February response from SP. There was a suspension review next month.

No. No, you didn't.

And if that's the best they can come up with after a weekend of no doubt frantic searching for evidence that it was sent, I think one can reasonably conclude that it wasn't.

Nick Wallis is doing a great job