Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #65

[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

Thread 64: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 27 September 2026 to 29 September 2026

FFS!!!!!!!!!

Stuart, you utter numpty!

He didn't give a fuck about the women did he!

As we suspected Drs are more valuable than nurses, harder to replace.

Yes! Why wasn't Upton moved? Never even considered.

are considered, that should have said.

From TT:

SF afterthat meeting going somewhere else for a period of time
NC but no contact between DU and SP. Didn’t occur to you there might be a claim against him?
SF probably not
NC that’s because everything in the training was TWAW.
SF not really its because EHRC guidance
NC did you suggest DU should be moved so your member would be able to return to the job she loved?

SF I didn’t then but with hindsight I concede that
NC you didn’t because the culture was profound sympathy towards TIM
SF more because nurses tend to be more replaceable than doctors so

Hi all, just joined to see wriggly worm still suffering.

This is a glorious morning of NC pointing out Stuart/RCN are piss poor at their jobs!

Even more reason that the RCN should have been on Sandie’s side and not making assumptions that she was being discriminatory rather than the one who was being discriminated against by her employer.

SF more because nurses tend to be more replaceable than doctors so

But you're a union that REPRESENTS NURSES!

FFS

Making an informed decision - SF's depths of ignorance would make this impossible.

He is being wrapped in net after net by NC here.

PS - note to members of the RCN: Don't ever have a problem with a doctor, will you, given that you are more replaceable.

"I wasn't trying to persuade her, I just wanted to explore options she didn't want to take as she had stated clearly and emphatically by saying 'no, I don't want to'!"

I've just shouted that exact same thing at my screen!

I can’t understand why FW was/is a member of RCN. He was an ambulance driver before he was sacked/invited to resign (I don’t know which) for harassing a disabled woman, wasn’t he?

not a paramedic, an ambulance driver. He was photographed for one of their services trans promotion day/ week/month/year .

Hell just love being mentioned in this.

Amd I still think that they thought her complaint would go nowhere as she wouldn't be able to afford it. Not being aware of her deep pocketed support.

And the class issue, of course.

Why is Stuart so keen to throw himself under the bus in defence of the RCN?

Rather than agreeing - 'yes I wasn't trained so I didn't know', Stuart goes with 'it was my understanding at the time'.

He's not helping the RCN and making himself look utterly incompetent in the process.

It's like RCN are treating human lives like a chess game - it's OK to sacrifice a pawns [nurse SP] to protect the king [DrU in this case] and queen [DrU in this case, according to himself😏]

Membership criteria seem rather vague...

"Nursing support worker membership includes health care assistants, health care support workers, nursing assistants, student nursing associates, nursing associates, assistant practitioners and many more in supportive or assistive nursing roles in the UK, subject to the membership eligibility criteria shown above."

From the RCN website.

From TT:

NC p 364. Ms Goldman’s email 21st May. Discloses for the first time SP sexual assaults when she was a teenager. You never followed up? You didn’t ask SP if she needed additional support or a female officer?
SF no
NC symptomatic of a culture where women’s sexual rights and boundaries not taken seriously
SF I don’t agree

NC SP said she’d heard DU had caused chaos in previous workplaces with accusations of misgendering. You did nothing to ask board to investigate
SF no

NC he was a serial troublemaker and not investigated
SF didn’t have names
NC do you dispute the information. It was provided to the board in your sight and at a meeting you attended?
SF I don’t recall

Is he really saying TLDR with regard to correspondence from Margret Gibbon?

Wasn’t he planning on studying to become a nurse?

Presumably because he'd like to keep his well-paid job while continuing to be lazy and incompetent.

NC you didn’t because the culture was profound sympathy towards TIM
SF more because nurses tend to be more replaceable than doctors so

This is a nurses' union - right?

From TT:

NC even if you don’t recall that you and the board knew which hospitals that related to and the board was refusing to investigate, you should have been making them so that?
SP a lot of information going back and forth. Unusual for me to be liasing with a solicitor I wasn’t sure.
NC another example of embarrassing info going against the RCN narrative that TIM s are the victims and those who doubts they’re women are bigots.
SF I disagree

I've had that thought in past tribunals when NC is doing what she does to witnesses - they remain loyal to their side and talk like eejits, defending the indefensible.
Why not , 'I accept what you're saying - I was never trained on that so that's what we did, we thought it was the correct procedure at the time, but I can't defend it now'

Maybe because that won't go down very well when they back to work and are seen as traitors?