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

Hence the screaming

About 20 minutes left of NC qs so no break, carrying on.

PM: We don't actively monitor members - we only monitor internal RCN network etc

Unlike Manchester City Council v Lorna Young, where even things she posted anonymously elsewhere were used against her...
Not that anything LY ever posted was anywhere near the same category as FW's posts!

Repeated repeating TRA soundbites

Think NC heard your screams!

Are these pp dim or just don't want to incriminate themselves?

TT

NC: The event FW attended - organised as tables around each protected characteristic?
PM: Don't know much about the event but think so yes.
NC: If FW was put on women's table that would be very discouraging to dissenters?
PM: Yes it would.

NC: New topic coming - probably 20 minutes - break now judge or just carry on? [Agreement is to carry on]

NC: one more Q re affirming child in eunuch identity, you say you don't know enough. I put it to you that your unwillingness to accept that it's profoundly abusive, is surely evidence of the climate of fear.
PM: Am not avoiding the Q, I just don't know enough about the topic.

Both

TT

NC: You are terrified of the TRAs in your organisation if you say that encouraging a little boy to be castrated is abusive?
PM: No
NC The RCN TRAs are very scary aren't tehy
PM: Not in my experience.

That parting shot by NC that PM can't bring herself to say that a child should not be supported in having a eunuch gender identity was chilling.

PM: Am not avoiding the Q, I just don't know enough about the topic.

For fucks sake.

NC: These are tweets from Ellie Mulreany. Threats to punch, stab, kick etc - this is very violent and menacing to ppl that dissent from G-ideology?
PM: Yes very unpleasant.
NC: And there's a lot of that sort of material out there?
PM: Don't follow closely but yes.

Be great if NC asked if PM knew of similar threats coming from GC women to punch, stab, kick etc. Oh wait. That sounds like violent male behaviour.

I miss the eunuchs, I hope they come back.
Edited to say I didn't see their welcome return and posted too soon

NC The RCN TRAs are very scary aren't tehy
PM: Not in my experience. Because I take great care to pander to them.

Finished her sentence for her.

TT

NC: p953 Bethany Hutchison of Darlington Nurses writing to you. She says re Rose Henderson that he is using women's changing rooms, and that he has told colleagues that he stopped hormones and is trying to get girlfriend pregnant

NC: BH describes RH conduct. If what she says is true, that is a shocking situation isn't it?
PM: It's disturbing yes.
NC: An abusive situation?
PM: I can see why you would say that but not sure I agree.

NC: Again you are afraid to give the obvious answer bcs of fear of RCN activists?
PM: Disagree.

TT

NC: BC describes particular harassment by RH towards nurse who is survivor of child sexual abuse. Shockingly abusive?
PM: Yes it is, if as described.

NC: BH is asking RCN to affiiliate and support the Darlington Nurses Union. Nicola Ranger asked you to reply. Your answer is non-commital?
PM: Yes that's normal at this stage - we suggested a meeting to dicuss further.

NC: Your reply includes that RCN will have members affected by the situation. Did you mean men like RH?
PM: I think we meant, that BH didn't know what a range of members would say, including trans yes but also other membrers.

TT

NC: You say that sometimes working together does pan out, sometimes not if principles widely apart, what did you have in mind?
PM: Not specifics, just saying we need to explore more etc.

NC: After the letter you passed matter on to Sarah Dodsworth and she met BH 3/12.
PM: Yes
NC: p959, this is SD account of the meeting?
PM: yes

NC: SD says a questionnaire should be sent to female members, and we see the Qaire at 951?
PM: Yes
NC: No mention that staff could comment on issue of single sex spaces at all? PM: No

NC: Plenty of members don't have English as first language?
PM: Yes
NC: And not that many men in NHS using women's changing rooms?
PM: Yes

Today 14:18
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.

This sums the whole thing up for me. So confident, so assured, so arrogant that she knows the law. Challenged by someone who actually knows the law and points out she's wrong?

"I'm not a lawyer"..

And whe you're not a lawyer, which is fair enough, but you have lawyers on retainer, you'd think you'd consult them about everything you needed to.

Edited to add that isn't there a thing about ignorance of the law being no defence?

TT

NC: Other than Darlington and Sandie Peggie are you aware of any other instances?
PM: No, but it may have happened elsewhere
NC: But possiblly not?
PM Also true

NC: Even if its' not happenign, that's no help to your female staff if they can't trust signs on the door?
PM: Yes
NC: Even if no man walks in, women might feel nervous knowing one could and that that is policy?
PM: Some would yes

Aghhhhhh!

Will you bloody engage your brain!

TT

NC: A union should be proactive about issues affecting your members? Not wait for them to take initiative?
PM: That's true, but resources are limited so in practice we do prioritise isses that many ppl raise, or are much in the news, eg patients in corridors.

NC: Are you telling the tribunal that you have not got round to making sure your staff etc understand and follow the Supreme Court ruling is that you've been too busy?
PM: No, but working with / waiting for eg NHS England and so on.

NC: If there were proposals re nurse pensions. You wouldn't wait for members to puzzle it out; you would analyse it and give view.
PM: Yes

I suspect it's frustration at the nature of these hearings - are they not effectively equivalent to anti-SLAPP? These are hearings that carry a heavier burden of necessity for a greater number of people (women) than just the single person at the centre. As such, I suppose a Judge could feel the whole thing is overly detailed because it does have a political agenda.

However, that is part of the job of various legal institutions and their officers, and being an impatient judge is rather like being an impatient teacher - it undermines doing the job properly. So she can suck it up, as so many of us do at work. The work is in the patience.

Per the previous thread, that's what I always did when unsure on employment legislation. Better than looking a bit of a twat at a tribunal.

And yet claims to have been nursing for a zillion years. Before then running A Business and chucking any sensibility re patient care out of the window for loadsa money and the Power and the Glory of being Big Boss.