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

From TT:

R not a brave outlier.

SF failure to analyse situation and advise SP of possible claim against FIFE/DU. He treated encounter as a disciplinary matter; it's telling of his acceptance or the requirements of GI that he rewrites her account and subsitutes "she" for "he" re DU

If your member complains a man should not be there because he is a man, and your officer rewrites her claim to say "she should not be there" representative of a taking a position.

In my submission this cuts off the idea that SP should have mentioned her GC belief.

While many women in a female-only changing room or on a women-only hospital ward or in a rape counselling group might reasonably object to the presence of biological males, it is difficult to see how the reasonableness of such an objection could be founded on possession or lack of a certificate. This is so especially when the distinction does not track physical appearance or presentation, and the woman is unlikely to have any information about the GRC at the point at which her objection might be raised."

👏

from Nick W.
NC
so underlying reasoning of SC that sss and so on the exceptions are there for a reasons women (W) are entitled to their benefit.

The inevitable logical corollary of that is that if the EA notions of sex must be read on a bio basis - in any sit they are entitled to sss that MUST be on the basis of bio sex. If not conditions for them will not be able to met.

So an attempt to operate purportedly but to permit a sub-cat of inds - those who ID as oppo sex. If that happens it will not meet the conds which make the operation of those services lawful. That in a nutshell was the import of the EHRC interim guidance which came out shortly after the SCj and was accurately summarised by the RCN's legal person Jo Galbraith-Marten (JGB)

despite that you see in microcosm what followed which was a "tsunami of obfuscation and denial" and on occasion "outright defiance".

Lawyers activists, HR depts started a proces of insisting the situation was terribly confusing - got to wait for guidance, got to wait for more guidance we have to wait for code of practice an OFS policy and consult etc etc. This was stated law - a clarification, but even if it was a change in the law...

i Accept it was a surprise to people who thought they knew what the law was. Even if it was a change in the law there was no excuse for the "obfuscation, denial and defiance" which followed the j. If the EA was amended to change say social class to a protected char - you would not expect lawyer etc to kick up a cloud of confusion and denial - you'd not expect them not to understand what itmeant.

If sex orientation was new and was added in you wouldn't expect people to say we need to consult, we don't understand, we need to wait for guidance and that is a fair parallel of what happened with the SCj - it is a model of clarity.

But because it was an unwelcome surprise for the public sector, lawyers, managers, HR people - it was not met with the proper response which was simply to comply with the law as swiftly as can be properly managed. Every employer in the country should have within a week or two of the SCj they should have announced that W toilets, charities and CRs should be for W only and men must not use facilities for W. It's often said it will be hard to police in the workplace - but if it's the rules, employees are expected to comply if it is not complied with it can be enforced by discip procedures. Legal historians will look back on this period as extraordinary in its attitude to the rule of law. That links what I want to say by way of intro and that was the single most telling piece of evidence we have heard in this tribunal. ..

From TT:

If member tells story, and what she describes sounds like sex or belief descrimination this should have been obvious to officer. His role is to diagnose and label issues raised. Esp if clock is ticking it was incumbent on him to raise for legal advice promptly

What should have been fairly obviously claims to sex harassment, and discrimination for expressing her belief it was not seen. She was not equipped to understand, and SF officer not to blame, organisation had buried its head in the sand. We saw not evidence that SF or GT would
have been advised of poss protections Forstater would provide a member.

I'm really sorry but due to a problem I am having with x some of the above is a copy of what was said earlier.

Oh, this is sooo good from Naomi!

Worth saying twice though!

I'm glad it's not just me! I think btw that it can't just be that the TT tweeter is threading unusually - some things I see on the back end just don't come through on the front end at all

From TT:

GT barely aware of Forstater and the deeper sense that SF could not identify the situation SP faced because he was steeped in TWAW, he envisaged what kind of discrimination -- gender reassignment discrimination. Objecting to a TW in a change room in a place where only women

Seeing objecting to a TW in a womens' space as gender reassignment discrimintation is a GI position to take.

Refusal in second claim in late 2024, report of new misgendering claim

IT terror just hit Naomi! She thought she'd left a note to self on the judges copy!

We all know that feeling!

I wonder what it said?

Ok will try again- from Nick Wallis

NC
Stuart Fraser's (SF) failure to advise SP she potentially had a case. He records SP's reax to DU in the F CR could be discrim - he saw SP as an employee in trouble for an alleged wrongdoing. It's telling SF's belief or lipservice to that belief that he rewrote SP's complaint

• he is re-written to say "she" - that little substituion by an officer of a union that had not take the position that TWAW - you only use F pronouns for TW or TiMs that they are W. If your member is complaining he shouldn't be there because he's a man

and your union officer rewrites that complaint using F pronouns if he weren't in thrall to GI. SF agreed that he should have been likely to spot victimisation or harassment claims if someone thinks they have been suspended maliciously for whistleblowing or rejecting sex advances

it wasn't up to SP to diagnise a claim - it's for the officer to do so and if it raises issues about discrim - esp if there is a clock ticking against a limited period it was incumbent on him to get legal advice as he accepted if there was any potential claim against DU

which anyone not blinded by GI would see there might be a potential claim. There were fairly apparent claims re sex harassment claim to be present whilst women undress and suspending C for objecting to that treatment. Those issues were there and the obv explanation to not act and advise as he should have - he had not been equipped to spot those issues - it was not SF's fault he did not give SP the right info.

The R had been framing the F in the most minimising and grudging terms. Neither SF nor GT could say with any confidence what Forstater meant. GT had barely heard of it. SF got it with a. little prompting but didn't know what it meant for his members. He was let down by the RCN who failed to train him possible.

And there was a deeper sense in which GI made it impossible to deal with. GI told him TWAW therefore there was nothing for SP object to with the presence of a kind of woman in her CR. SF agreed the kind of discrim he was thinking of was GR discrim.

Objecting to the presence of a man in a sss would only be GR discrim would be on the basis of GI. The law is now clear - if you object to a TW in a femal space it is lawful discrim it's because he's a man. SF could not analyse that in those terms because the R took the Gi analysis of the law - like most orgs took the GI version of the law not the correct interp of the law.

Given the look of relief that she hadn't I dread to think

"Pick up Tunnocks on the way to the station"

From TT:

Refusal of representation grounds. No distinction made between workplace v legal representation and may be denied based on previous legal advice.

No distinction in workplace vs legal important, and NB R was responding in private, with employer and with MG advice and in

It was representing her in the workplace for the entire time. Makes a nonsense of NP claim he had no discretion on legal representation.

Variously said he had no discretion and then he had a discretion he had exercised in circs where external legal advice might affect representation

There's a huge amount of stuff from Nick Wallis- I am not copying over everything, just where it adds details TT may not have (it's hard to keep up!)

NC
But just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right.

[moves to the allegation of misgendering added to SP's disciplinary (D) which gave rise to the debate over a secondary ET against NHS Fife]

NC the On the Case RCN doc about legal representation which "may" be given, "may" be given for both workplace rep and legal rep - no distinction - the point is significant because it's clear from On The Case makes no distinction of taking legal advice from others - and the R was repping SP in the workplace whilst she was receiving LA from Margaret Gribbon and at times working with her.

The R cannot say it could not give her access to LA because it was. It makes a nonsense of NP saying his hands were tied or that he'd never done it and wasn't going to start.

There wer two explanations neither of which could be true. He had discretion, he'd exercised it before as he had in SP's case.

It emerged for the first time in xe that SF had disagreed with NP's decision and sought to have SP repped. Shame NP did not give this evidence in chief. SF inferred it was morally the right and stated it was reputationally it was the right thing to do. Which is right because it would have helped its 86% membership.

A powerful explanation is needed as to why a union with a large F membership presented with a really imp strat case in which it could take an important public stand in defence of the rights of its F membership. The explanation for that is GI - it could act in the interests of its female majority membership because it was in thrall to a v small proportion but vociferous proportion of its male membership

.

line ending "in" should end "in cooperation with her"

.

From TT:

Neither gave evidence but NP thought it was right morally and legally to represent claimant.

There was indeed a great deal at stake for R's female (86%) membership.

Why a TU unwilling to take action in favour of a large portion of membership, a strategic case to establish rights.

Take an important public stand for the rights of its female membership? Only explanation is the grip of an ideology that required to privilege the rights of a small, vociferous minority of its male members.

The R has never properly explained why NP thought her new claim should be included in first claim only three weeks before her first claim to be heard. Preposterous.

from Nick Wallis

NC

I invite you to reject NP's claims as to why he rejected SP's request for help and note he chose not to do it but has never properly explained why. This is where s136 of the EA may be of assistance - C has a case that you did this bceause of my GC belief. R says its all about getting alt LA - their expl makes no sense at all. They tried to expl. NP made the ludicrous claim that he was better placed to assess how to deal with SP's claim three weeks before her first tribunal than the C's legal team. He must have known that was nonsense, but it;s that sort of excuse making that you are entitled to say there is sufficient weight of evidence even if quite. lot of it (as often the case in ET cases) circumstantial.

From TT:

NP says that he is better placed that Cs legal team, wihtout having read the first claim, to judge the strategy and second guess decision.

GT failed to seek assurances she was asked to pending return to work, assurances that no men in changing room.

Asked to seek three assurances and copy to all members of RCN in Fife. Should have been willing to do this on behalf of members. P359, ask board to accept matters of concern and org to address including

Some one please get Naomi more water

from Nick W

NC
Finally of the three claims, GT's failure to seek assurances that SP asked her to seek. Failing to get an unequivocal promise from NHS Fife that no men would be able to use the F CR, the C changed tack and asked GT to write to NHS Fife to seek three quite general assurances and to copy that req to Fife Health Board. Any union should have been willing to ask of any employer.

SP asked GT to be found at p459: (i) it understands and accepts that it staff have the right to discuss matters of common concern and organised to address them and that this includes the use of female only Spaces by male staff and there will be no disciplinary consequences for anyone who does so; This first ask is ought to have had partic resonance with TU - the whole point of a TU is that workers are better able to assert the rights of their employers if they do so collectively

Oh, poor thing!