Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #66

[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

Thread 65: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026

.

Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off.

Both sides, again...

This very senior Rcn woman, presumably on a good salary, seems to be very, very unaware of lots of ...... stuff

TT

NC: There was a separate session for sex realist members?
PM: Yes
NC: 21st July. Linda Bailey then Chair of congress attended; also Wendy Owen head of DEI, Patricia [missed] -
PM: [gives title]

NC: Also 2 rank and file members?
PM: I wasn't there but sounds right.
NC: These were not open session. Invitation only.
PM: Yes
NC: Only "well behaved" GC members.
PM: No

NC: What was invitation process?
PM: Not certain but I think a number of ppl were invited, including ppl who had complained about the open ones.
NC: Only two ppl took up invitation?
PM: Yes. It was face to face meeting.

NC: Why wasn't it publicly advertised?
PM: I don't know.
NC: On face of it, that's odd surely? Open sessions that frame FWS as bad news, then apparently secret session for TERFs. Isn't that odd?

PM: I think there was an open session at Congress and then the open online ones, and then two closed (face to face) events one 'each side', which not advertised.

I'm going to go outside and scream loudly.

TT

NC: So, balance of closed sessions - neither advertised?
PM: Correct
NC: Why not advertised?
PM: I think aim was to have dialogue, recognising that shared space perhaps not best way

NC: Because TRAs not capable of calm engagement with oppenents wasn't it. PM: No, bad behaviour both sides.
NC: You knew all hell would break loose from TRAs
PM> No that's not why.

NC: You made no attempt to engage ppl that had not already spoken up as GC?
PM: True
NC: And difficult logistics - time, distance - on person?
PM Yes, but advantages of face to face too.

i've been kicked out again
drums fingers

TT

NC: This was grudging engagement with GC members, and no attempt to find out how many of your members might agree with them?
PM: Agree it didn't work as we had hoped.

NC: You have never consulted your membership widely on these issues.
PM: No that's true, and it's something that we might in future do, but that wasn't the aim of that particular initiatve.

PM: No, bad behaviour both sides.

What utter bollocks.

PM: No, bad behaviour both sides.

I understand that NC has her momentum, and can't take up everything that is said, but I wish she could have stopped and asked for proof of that!

NC: You have never consulted your membership widely on these issues.
PM: No that's true, and it's something that we might in future do, but that wasn't the aim of that particular initiatve.

Might do in future? I thought this morning there was a plan already in place to do this?

You repeat a lie often enough, pp believe it's the truth, unquestionably

Oh Patricia...

TT

NC: Doc "fair care for trans patients".
NC: RCN document? And Mr Hay asked you about distribution etc. Cd you look at its p6.

NC: Are you familiar with the doc?
PM: Know it reasonably well yes.

NC: p5. Section on providing healthcase to trans ppl / communities. These bullets emphasise privacy and keeping trans status secret. And on p6. Re accommodation - says privacy re placement, it means, man women-only ward if he says he's a woman, yes?

PM: This doc is 2017 and that was understanding at the time, but yes that's what it says.

NC: You are right it's 2017 - but its stance has been bitterly contested ever since then, right up to Supreme Court?
PM: Yes but was understanding at the time.
NC: My point is there was a dispute about it.
PM: Yes there was a dispute.

It was NEVER the law!

Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer - could result in a derailing of the witness all afternoon over something she can address elsewhere.

.

TT

NC: And RCN - you say the whole NHS - took the "TWAW" side of that dispute. PM: Yes dispute, but, accepted practice was under the law as this doc describes.

NC: What you are saying is that gender ideology adopted across the whole of the NHS, that you weren't an outlier. Am sure that's true, but the point is, you had adopted the ideology.
PM: It was the law at the time.

NC: But it was not the law at the time. The SC explained the law, didn't change it.
PM: I am not a lawyer.

I think the glossary is incoming.

PM: It was the law at the time.
NC: But it was not the law at the time. The SC explained the law, didn't change it.
PM: I am not a lawyer.

Heavy sigh.

NC: What you are saying is that gender ideology adopted across the whole of the NHS, that you weren't an outlier. Am sure that's true, but the point is, you had adopted the ideology.
PM: It was the law at the time.
NC: But it was not the law at the time. The SC explained the law, didn't change it.
PM: I am not a lawyer.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

Patricia, if you exclude the rights of women from your thoughts, words and actions, that's EXclusive, not inclusive. It's not bloody difficult. Unless you are wilfully discriminatory against women of course.

My forehead lump from banging it on the table continues to grow...

No one seems to take responsibility for anything in this organisation!

still wftchtj - wtf clerk, let me in!