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

One thing I don't understand - and probably mentioned this during Peggie's employment tribunal - is why Naomi doesn't just point out that NHS Fife were breaching the 1992 workplace regulations. You don't have to bang on about the Supreme Court stuff.

Yes, I don't get this either...

Yes, good point.

Thank you for mentioning that she's doing it. I'm finding it very distracting at the moment.

Just catching up and saw this. Double FFS! And Wallace an RCN member? Holy shit! If I were other than a tough aul biological woman I might have fainted.

Just catching up as pesky work keeps intruding...was not expecting Freda Wallace to get a mention. Well illustrates what a state they were in.

From TT

DH request was ‘so we know you’re taking steps to defend our rights’ . Who was ‘we’?
GT not aware of other members who raised concerns
DH Any dissatisfaction expressed by SP or advisors regarding what you’d put in your email to Mr Millar?
GT no

GT if other members had concerns it would be raised usually as a collective group and we’d keep all informed
DH you didn’t flag or explain to SP at the time that you wouldn’t send to all members

GT I was busy with the issues raised by SP
DH Mr Millar response you then contact SP October - ‘it’s unhelpful David Millar is unclear on specifics’
GT it was unclear what arrangements would be made for SP return to work

Alessandra Asteriti is very frustrated about this on X, and seems to be tying it to a broader difference of political tactics which she disagrees with. Not sure how far her suspicions are justified but she is very sore about it.

Is it something to do with a breach of the Workplace Regs being a criminal breach and these cases are being brought in the civil courts? Didn't some discussion around this take place in Peggie's first case with the judge refusing to take this law into account? And isn't his refusal part of the appeal?

I posted y/day that Workplace Regs were brought up in the Darlington case, but it didn't do any good, the only response seems to have been a directive re-enforcing TW's rights to use the women's facilities.
I'll try to find the quote.

I can't wait to see where Naomi goes with this witness later.

fanOfBen · Today 12:28
From TT:
BH She [SD] highlighted the 1992 Workplace regs. I case had been adjourned and the next day the trust had a new workplace guidance which doubled down on TG men.
from thread #64

Who is she? I've got her blocked on X for some reason but for the life of me can't remember why 😆

From TT

DH requests made by SP. You have no calls or meetings with Mr Millar without MG . Ask for clarity re impact assessment. No concern about the email not being copied to all members.
GT that’s why I wanted a phone call so we could discuss

DH response from Mr Millar in November. Proposing to delay giving a detailed response until first ET had concluded
GT it was an arrangement that could affect all staff. I didn’t agree SP should wait for an impact assessment or anything that would delay her return to work.

I know Michael Foran raised the issue of the ludicrouness (sp?) of Big Sond opining that he couldn't comment on the breach of the Workplace Regs as that is criminal law and he (Big Sond) was dealing with civil law. I think I got that vaguely right. If it had turned out that someone had been murdered in all the stuff that led to a civil case, would a judge say 'let's all ignore the murder'?

It was made clear yesterday that Fife NHS Board or whatever their official name is had no idea until very, very recently that the Workplace Regs existed even!

From TT

DH SP responded to you next day and we see a request made of you ‘it would help if the RCN made public its disagreement with David Millar and Fife Health board’
GT Wasn’t my place to do that. I discussed with colin (?) and we wouldn’t usually do that.
DH any thought re making an exception?
GT no

DH draft email you’re proposing to send to Mr Millar.
SP yes
DH SP made a further request re possible collective grievance from RCN. ‘Unions should be mindful many women are concerned about speaking out’. Did you take any actions to gauge that re members?
GT I wasn’t aware of any members raising it so asked RCN Direct if any members had raised similar

Academic lawyer. Raised a number of GC legal perspectives while at the University of Glasgow and things didn't go well for her there. She is pretty cross about lots of things but particularly about everyone lionising Michael Foran when in her view she got there first and wasn't taken seriously. She is particularly cross about GC lawfare's reliance on GC=belief which she sees as a real weakness. Don't know enough about the specifics or the academic legal context to evaluate how fair any of that is.

Is the issue with the workplace regs the potential TRA argument the FWS did not determine the definition of sex in anything other than the Equality Act? It’s a ludicrous argument (but when has that ever stopped them?

Very interesting, thank you.

.

The caricature nit-picking shop steward -
what? you let somebody other than a qualified electrician change a lightbulb in a desk lamp? down tools! all out! -
is an extreme, but the other extreme is
the rules? what rules? regulations? never heard of them,1992 was a long time ago wasn't it? workers' rights? well, yes but it depends .. the bosses may have decided to over-rule them, and it might be unkind to transfolx to abide by them, so let's just all #bekind and make sure they are comfortable with everything, that's what really matters..

A pendulum-swing back part of the way to 'Let's see what the laws/rules/regulations are before we go any further' would be nice

So far I'm getting Sandie wouldn't talk to us unless she wanted us to do blah blah blah. And no one else had a problem.

I've heard that argument about "GC belief" before but I've never seen anyone explain how you defend those of us who (call it what you like) recognise the biological basis of sex and think it matters if it's not on the basis of belief. There's no equivalent for fact based protections in law.

I must admit I'm impressed that SP asked them to consider raising it as an issue for ALL their female members but one does wonder just how many members bringing it up would have been enough for them to take action. Surely the issue is for all females regardless of whether they could speak up or not. And bearing in mind she had been suspended, who is going to want to be in the same situation? That's the whole point of collective bargaining surely?

I sympathise with the argument about GC = belief but it’s what we currently have. Hopefully there will be a case where the scientific argument can be made and given legal protection but until then the legal bods have to rely upon WORIADS.

DH done

Break for lunch