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

From TT:

SF I was looking at the assumption of before any wrongdoing there had to be an investigation. She felt uncomfortable, had felt let down by her employer.
NC I suggested and you agreed a range of advice. The one you picked was a member accused of wrongdoing. You analysed it as the member in trouble.
SF yes

Oh FUCK OFF!

SF ‘he said she said’ case no witnesses

Misgendering there SF. Weasel.(correct seeing, obvs)

He so blatantly doesn't even seem to believe this TRA shit, he just never gave a fuck or payed any it attention.

Edited to rant a bit more.

😂

Oops.

He knows there are traps ahead and he also knows he’s about the fall into several of them.

I bet he's not comfortable getting his kit off in front of others. Bit of projection going on here?

….and Stuart that is why you were biased!

I think he's more or less given up trying to avoid them.

You jumped to a conclusion instead of the most obvious reason

I,I,I,erm,erm,erm. Sigh.

And for a full two hours.

From TT:

NC Mr Hay asked she didnt mention GC beliefs. She just didn’t want to change in front of a man.
SF lots of reasons why someone wouldn’t want to change in front of someone. Self confidence issues.
NC but is it acceptable to say don’t mind other colleagues but not that one.
NC it was your job to notice she might have suffered harassment re sex. But you didn’t spot it because you’d been given no training from RCN.

Grrrrrrrrrrrr

SP ‘he said she said’ case no witnesses so I’m making an assumption

I think one of the things that came out of the original tribunal was that it was not treated as a 'he said/she said' case at all, it was treated as a 'he said, end of story, burn the witch'.
As I recall, no effort was made to get SP's side of the story for ages, whereas DrU went around crying on shoulders, being helped to a Hansom outside his car, being supported and cossetted by all concerned because everything he said was obviously true, wasn't it?

At least he's still in the chair. I'd have slowly slid under the table by now if I was him.

“Assigned at birth”. Showing you have been well educated Stuart.

Yeah this is it- he didn't care because he thought it didn't affect him- just a bunch of silly women getting their knickers in a twist, who cares what womens' needs or feelings are?

(Edited due to a rogue apostrophe)

(Edited a second time due to not editing properly the first). [bangs head]

I wonder if she will get on to GRCs, because we don't have time for him to try to think that through.

Naomi on repeat:

"Do you agree?" In a tone that says you know you have to say yes don't you!

Why am I feeling sorry for him?! Someone buy me a grip!

It's ok, he's wedged in.

From TT:

SF I wanted to investigate further.
NC you said earlier gender reassignment discrimination. That proceeds on the premise that Dr U is a kind of woman.
SF dr U thinks of herself as a woman.
NC but out there in the world there is another view. That TW are a kind of man.

Cue some swearing...

.

From TT:

NC each view comes to a different conclusion and under the EA, Dr U Is a kind of man
SF yes
NC but at RCN there is one view that Dr U Is one view only
SF no I came at it as a member support
EC a contested issue
SF yes

Just in case useful from Nick wallis re the above

NC and the disc you were thinking of was GR disc, wasn't it
SF I probably shouldn't have said disc, but yes on reflection it was
NC but you were comparing the disc between a trans woman and a non trans woman - that was the discrimination
SF yes
NC and any other disc would have been recorded here
SF yes
NC so it was clear you didn't think SP had suffered disc as a result of a man using the women's changing room
SF there was no policy in place - my understanding was that TW could use the CR they ID'd with
NC and that was a policy RCN had no prob with
SF not to my knowledge no
NC and it didn't occur to you that SP's suspension might be a result of victimisation