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

@nauticant thanks. Conflicts with the original case I think where Upton agreed Sandie hadn't mentioned Bryson by name.

To be honest any bloke who enters a female changing room- most women would panic, what are his motives? Its a boundary breach and scary in a private space where a woman is undressed.

She had found her tribe. It was a case of strategic importance to at least one campaigning organisation.

The old "it turned out ok in the end" fallacy.

"she had found her tribe" - FFS isn't the Union supposed to be her tribe

Gerbils need no hamster assistance in keeping numbers up. They are sex realists.

C and those advising her were perfectly content with the legal advice she was getting. She had found her tribe.
Interesting choice of words.

From TT:

to say to witnesses 'you know what I mean'. It is possible for beliefs to be in disagreement and it is not in my submission for the Rs support for GI to be antithetical to GC belief. The C's claims bring together a number of disparate incidents across reasons and time.

LM did not express dissatisfaction with her union rep and her safety issues fall away because of failure to provide details of name or posts.
Now on to Darlington Nurses, and Miss Melle, both occur after the incident in question. RCN documents 'fair care' etc have no bearing on

Naomi's expression is making me laugh

I'm trying to imagine how high her eyebrows have risen.

The subtlety is that SP has been consistent in saying she didn't mention Bryson's name but in this hearing she confirms it was the person she had in mind when she made her comment.

Ah, a thought crime.

I think the subtlety is that suggesting DU in the women's changing room is "like" IB in a female prison is not the same as suggesting DU is a rapist.

From TT:

SF's work. Like blog posts etc and only point to Rs attempting to balance a variety of viewpoints in a pluralistic society. It is not appropriate to use the definitions in the 'fair care' document as a legal document. Read the preamble. The summary Forstater is fair.

The RCN outreach sessions took place after the incident in question. Both witnesses - Fox and Wilmot - did not take exception with the description of FWS by the legal commentator and there were two 'secret' sessions, one for each side.

She had read through his submission and along with his line of questioning, none of this this will be a surprise

I have to come clean and confess that if I find a picture online of a cute fluffy rodent, feck taxonomy, it is a gerbil. Guilty as charged.
In fairness, I admit freely that this is a Husky Rat not a gerbil,
Gerbil-adjacent, though😁

From TT:

Lost a section about pronouns, merch, FSU evidence and YouGov poll - none of these considered to be much help.

The evidence in this case is that no other individual is known to the RCN to be complaining about men in women's ss facilities. The YouGov poll does nothing in this context. Finally the presence of a trans member in a workshop does not indicate bias, there is nothing to suggest

Oh I know that, but my contemptuous face involves raised eyebrows and flared nostrils, even if i know they're saying what they were always going to say. With a bit of eye rolling. So I was wondering....

I think you sum up DH's submissions as

'move along, nothing to see here'.

can

The presence of Fred any where suggests many things. None of them good.

I had exactly the same words in my head!
'What's all the fuss?'
But he has to say things like that I suppose...

From TT:

that 'more colourful' posts by FW were made until after these events. Nothing that suggests that FW was acting on behalf of RCN. There is nothing to suggest that RCN is acting on any basis other than that of neutrality or accepting a plurality of views.

I suggested that the only motivation to be considered is that of SF alone. Not a matter of institutional belief or culture. This head of claim solely focused on one convo between SF and SP. It is for you to determine SF's motivation only. Why did he not proceed as C suggests

Have I missed much?

I think DH is doing well. It seems fairly clear that he and NC have a cordial professional relationship - I wonder if they chat about the case afterwards, and what they say?

There is nothing to suggest that RCN is acting on any basis other than that of neutrality or accepting a plurality of views.
Sorry, DH, I 'm trying very hard to be fair to you but - c'mon!!🙄

just the expected downplaying and gaslighting