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 Nick W

NC
[we're back] I was talking about the C's reqs in her letter of 29 Aug 2025 and I think I got to middle of par 22 - the three asks that the C was asking for were uncontentious.

GT reframed the qs in terms of only being about SP and she didn't send them to every member. Didn't tell SP that's what she was doing and didn't share those asks with NHS fife RCN members - do compare p463 and p457.

She said she was only rewriting those asks in her own words - but she made the asks less far-reaching and forthright or to draw them back to SP's case - that is not coincidence - it is however consciously and it doesn't have to be consciously -if she'd done it in the way SP asked her she'd be publicly backing the rights of the union's SR membership and she was not able to do that.

It might not have been conscious or it might be because she worked for a union in the grip of GI who would find SP's propositions unacceptable.

Naomi is still struggling, she is drinking so much water.

hmph there are none in my version of the interface. An investigation for another time.

From TT:

she would have been seen to be backing SR position and this would have been unacceptable. This would not have been consistent with GI and that makes again otherwise mystifying behaviour understandable.

Also SF failure to give information about a possible claim in time. A course of conduct extending throughout this perios, representing treatment of claimant and coloured throughout by GI, which runs throughout claimant's case

from Nick W
NC
GT was willing to push SP's requests after softening them and behind the scenes - she simply could not have done it - even months after the SC ruling - it would have run counter to the R's values - to say it would have run counter to GI.

The issue of limitation is still live in relation to SF's failure to give and get proper advice. SP's complaint about SF's failure is out of time unless it's part of a course of conduct - she relied on the clear fact it was part of a course of conduct because R was repping C in the workplaces and was in the grip of GI throughout and it coloured the way she was treated.

I want to end by reminding you of the background of the Carr review and the dismaying findings of misogyny - male voices to dominate shouting down of female members

On a PC interface, on the basic page of x.com search for anything in the search query box, you then get results with a search query box above, and the dots are to the right of that search query box.

ah but I can go to x.com/search-advanced Thanks!

From TT:

Refer again to Carr again and findings of misogyny and exploitation of female members only a few years beofre these events. Things like this are not resolved in a short time, and urge to read these findings

In light of these dismaying findings should have led a union, with 86% membership female, to prioritise remedy

from Nick Wallis
NC
..and sexual exploitation of F members. Problems as deep-seated as that are not eradicated in a couple of years. In light of the findings of the Carr review - which I would invite you to re-read - in light of those profoundly dismaying findings of the RCN which should have caused it to prioritise... esp as 86% members are women

• it should have prioritised eradicating misogyny, but misogyny and GI are aligned - GI prioritises the wish of a small group of men - some who profoundly wish tehy were and others with diff motives, but without distinction between harmless men and Ellie Mulreany and Freda Wallace - GI makes no distinction.

It says TWAW and should have every access to female spaces and that is destructive of everything which has been created over centuries if you look at women in prisons - every protection for women by opening up everything to men - it is misogynistic because it allows a small number of men to trample over the needs and rights of all women. When it comes to the Carr review do read it in the light of the R's EDI strategy.

Naomi is finished

She can spend the afternoon sucking cough sweets now.

Starting at 1.15 with respondents submission

from Nick Wallis
NC

p260 of the bundle.... the R 2024 RDI strat - the material on p264 - the whole of it for the absence of any or any sig treatment of misogyny or sexism - the Carr review said it was a big issue - there was nothing of the sort you might expect or hope for in this EDI strat

From TT:

And GI is misogyny, acting as it does for the rights of a small group of men. How to distinguish between categories of trans ID men including F Wallace? Ideology destructive of anything created for an by women by admit any man who says he is a woman. It is misogyny to place rights of a small number of men. Thus Carr review significant.

Respondent's 2024 EDI strategy and material on p264. Misogyny post Carr not mentioned as you would hope or expect. In partic this page I took PM to report on progress no report on tacking sexism or misogyny. Misogyny is not to be named; claims that 'all sexes and genders can suffer discrimination' attempt to blur reality of sex discrimination.

Evidence of effect of GI on efforts to acknowledge the reality of sex, and for remedying discrimination.

[NC ends there and also we break for lunch.]

NC and NW chatting about their weekend plans 😂

Phew. I think we still need a volunteer for this afternoon? In case it helps in the light of X's misbehaviour this morning, I see that one way to the best page which @nauticant points out is just to put

(from:TribunalTweets)

in the ordinary search box, and then choose the Latest tab.

Any clarity - is it really 1:15 or 2:15?

That's exactly what I meant.

1:15 I think.

I was about to comment approvingly on Naomi's choice of place to go on holiday with her husband, but perhaps we shouldn't share it, to spare her either hoards of admirers or citizens' arrest!

NC is doing an incredible job today, considering she is definitely under the weather. She must have been a member of the Iceni in a previous life. Many thanks to everyone doing the C&P, exceptional work.

Catching up on a mass of comments, made it into a real nail biter. Thanks to everyone c&Ping TT and NW.

She has done brilliantly there. At the very least the total lack of balance or thought is exposed, whether the heavy political embracing of bias was provably conscious or not.

1.15.

ETA of course I'm now doubting myself!

I went on X and clicked on Tribunal Tweets, then clicked on their tweet from 11:46 [Return from short break. We resume]. I was able to see all the replies to the end.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2105610188208361536

I hope that key people in other unions are watching this and taking note. At times it feels like Naomi is taking back ground seized by GI one legal case at a time. Each time, one hopes a case will be a tipping point in the war. There is definitely a long time strategy at play here and I'm hoping this is one of those strategic cases that is part of a much bigger picture.