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:

evidence painted a picture of a heated exchange of views, she said all from RCN members.
PF dismissed upset of other members on the session as 'tears and snotters', described handling of comments and dealing with chat as shocking.

The most important feature was the absence of GT, SF or NP from any of this session.

SOG evidence - gave credible evidence, he was asked about claims involving nurses and gc nurses, RCN is the largest union but not all nurses are member. He said claims were rising but falling

Oh Fuck off!

He bullied her now is sticking the boot in

Bastard

Acknowledged support for LGBTQIA+ people

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the benefits to LGB people of FWS.

From TT:

as a proportionate. No underlying data was presented and it is impossible to draw any conclusions from this. The raw data evidence could have been produced, few if any safe factual conclusions can be formed from his evidence.

JM was presenting as someone distressed by employment proceedings and granting latitude for that, she was not a satisfactory witness. She gave hyperbolic answers, repeated the same speech whatever the question, suggested that her dissatisfaction was already in her mind but

From TT:

made no expression of this dissatisfaction. Expressed incredulity at the idea of doing a reflection and said she had had no legal support. Again, she raised no concern in response to this email, and discussed preparing a reflection in her own email. Her evidence was exaggerated

and embellished and the tribunal should not take notice of any evidence from her without supporting documentation.
BH by contrast gave measured and considered evidence acknowledging support from an RCN member, Dodson.

He seems to be just summarising the witnesses ' testimonies, rather than presenting a clear argument, unlike NC.

These personal comments about Jennifer are not kind (something we're always being lectured to be!) , don't know much about this type of tribunal so assume this is a normal way to refer to people ?

from Nick Wallis
....IN my sub her account was exaggerated embellished and the tribunal should have no regard to her testimony ...

From TT:

Now on to NP - a clear and considered witness, very credible. Considerable exp in RCN operations, both operations and policy. Explained how RCN decides to provide support. Spoke of clear rationale of the reason not to provide support.

SF, by his own admission, something of a mumbler, gave clear and credible evidence. He was largely x examined on a number of hypothetical scenarios in which he would have acted promptly. On protected disclosures, a far stricter timeline compared to discrimination. Clearly

Anyone who thinks flying the PP flag is a "neutral" act should read the judgement of Mr. Justice Linden in R (on the application of Smith) v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin)

I quoted it earlier, but here's a taste

Similarly, the fact that a police van, which might have been used for law enforcement purposes, was also painted or marked prominently with transgender colours served to add to the impression that the Force as a whole was associating itself with a particular viewpoint and, as far as gender critical people were concerned, taking sides.

I do not think this could be a controversial point.

Whilst I share the reservations about how Naomi’s style will land with the judge, it is also worth noting that whoever is paying her probably has a wider purpose than just winning this case. Whilst I hope SP wins, actually the sunlight is good either way, because any loss will probably be based on ‘process in relation to how the RCN take cases’ and not ‘RCN isn’t captured’ or ‘Fine to choose not to take this case’. Win or lose, the NHS will be talking about this case, and no manager would want to be asked Naomi’s questions that make it clear that an organisation is captured/biased.

But they don't have to be neutral or both-sided on the matter do they? They just have to not discriminate against people for their personal beliefs..?

So you're saying they are not neutral?

From TT:

more haste in a case with protected disclosure detriments. SF and other witnesses had propositions put to them of hypothetical scenarios attempting to demonstrate adoption of GI by RCN. Using DU as a clear cut example of error. It was not that clear cut,

and in fact the court of sessions had said that man, woman etc could have more than one meaning and could in some circumstances involve members of the opposite sex. This was the decision that was ultimately appealed. The SC only overruled this in April 2025. Prior to that the

Casual note taking????

Fuck me.

I bumped into a neighbour at lunchtime who works in an NHS mother and baby unit. She hadn't heard of this case - but knew and strongly supports Sandie's case re SSS against the nHS. But she said it's hard to talk about at work as they are all scared of getting in trouble for agreeing sex is real and matters...

‘The SC only overruled this in April 2025.’

That’s not true, though, is it? The SC didn’t overrule anything, they clarified what the law was, and had always been.

That's true. Unions are allowed to take a political position. The problem for the RCN that they claim to be neutral as a defence that they could not and did not discriminate against SP. Given that they are clearly not neutral, that defence falls away.

@Lacksie , not in itself a strong sign of bias. But when all is added together we see that there is not equal recognition of worth or respect. The Merch, is minor but the rewriting of The original complaint to imply that the imposing Dr was she not he. That is major example of bias & capture.

GT impressive? Ha.

From TT:

Inner House decisions bound all lower courts and that supported DU's assertion of the right to use the women's CR. It's not evidence of GI adoption but an understanding of the law. Suggesting that SF had a bias for GI is not supported by the use of 'she' in his note of convo

with SP. Even if it sheds light on SF motivation, it doesn't demonstrate hostility. [quotes from Adams, use of pronouns can be benigh]. SF further disputes that he did not attempt to persuade C to accept alternative work arrangements but was exploring options.

DH is summarising the evidence given by each witness and on the witnesses themselves. It'll be interesting what he has to say about PM.

Yeh I didn't understand why they kept trying to deny they don't have a view on the matter- they're allowed to!

Inner House decisions bound all lower courts and that supported DU's assertion of the right to use the women's CR.

This is not correct. DU didn't have a GRC, and the case (by that stage) was only about men holding a GRC - isn't that so?