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

I need to go now I'm afraid.

Which tends to support the narrative that you can't disagree with the RCN party line and keep your job...

I'll take over. Thanks @fanOfBen

I shouted… ‘Wow’. What a statement for a nurse union rep.

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?
SF 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 hadn't realised that Fred Wallace was an RCN member, or that he (used to?) work for the Ambulance Service.
This is from 2021.

Possibly a way of covering 'Anyone more replaceable than doctors'?

NC second claim. P 400. 23 December email MG to you. In relation to disciplinary report she tells you the latter is further evidence of discrimination and harassment against SP. Also 31 December SP makes same point in an email. You forward that to NP. You’re not sure if you can support separate claim. Was that because she was already using external legal advice?
SF yes. I don’t recall if I spoke to Norman.

So with no ‘application’ form it was Stuart’s interpretation of what Sandie was asking for rather than Sandie’s own words.

NC MG email asks you to forward advice and assistance form. Then we see the answer is not to send her a form nor tell her she can make a request, but just says no.
SF I sent a request to NP and he said no.
NC you know there is no form
SF I disagree. There was a call between me and SP explaining we needed to wait for NP. MG had made it clear what needed legal assistance on.
NC did you fill out a request to NP?
SF no I forwarded the MG email to Norman
NC explanation to SP was ‘not within our discretion’ Presumably it’s within your role to push back?

Goodness. There are filters, and then there's this.

who are the witnesses after SF?

Bloody hell.

Are we going for the 'it's not the RCN I'm just not good at my job' thing we've seen before?

Re FW and RCN, wonder if ambulance drivers are not really the brief of any possible HCP area job, so RCN was best fit?

For a man who is supposed to fight for union members he appears to have no fight in him whatsoever.

SF I thought we should have supported SP but NP took a different view.
NC when you said to NP it should be supported was that in writing?
SF no it was several discussions, including with AS. But not my decision to make.
NC is that why it took so long?
SF no
NC it says if you choose to take legal advice that could mean. So it is discretion? SF yes
NC you argued it would have been reputationally better if the RCN had supported ?
SF yes.

Path of least resistance is Stuart’s way.

NC there’s already been press coverage of SP original case and isn’t it right that unions are unusually keen to take important cases?
SF yes
NC you were right and NP was wrong
SF had I been running that case I would have challenged it but I wasn’t dealing with that legal side. Potentially was victimisation. To explore it the right thing to do.

I did support her, I did. There is just no evidence of that at all so you'll have to take my word for it!

Well OK then

OMG the irony.

I can't believe he admitted to this in order to deny that men with a TI aren't prioritised over women.

He's very unclear and muddled.

Yes, preferable to a nurses union to admit doctors are prioritised over nurses than TIMs are prioritised over women. It's mind boggling

I hope nurses are paying attention and are leaving in droves for the DNU

Oh Stuart!

He's either clueless or lying.

NC where it says ‘other advisors’ includes but not confined to legal representation. You had been working with MG for months.
SF I would potentially have handled differently.
NC generic ‘may or may not represent’
SF it was an unusual position for me to be on (working with external solicitor) NC meeting with AS why couldn’t SP be told at once?
SF NP (inaudible)
NC the real reason couldn’t represent was the union couldn’t be seen publicly to represent women who disagreed?
SF no
NC it was because it was a side not picked by RCN
SF disagree, we support all our members
NC wouldn’t there be howls of fury from activist staff and members?

He can't be that clueless. This is butt covering, big time. Under oath, too