Thread by @tribunaltweets

We hope to be live tweeting day 8 of nurse Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton from 9.30am today or soon after.

SP’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation.

Please note that we are reporting using the CVP (remote access) format; there were severe technical problems with this yesterday.

It appears that the hearing may not be concluded in the two weeks allocated. The morning is likely to be continued cross examination of Dr Upton.

The employment judge has given specific directions to witnesses called by the parties to not read our, or any other coverage before giving evidence:

More background information on the case, our earlier coverage and press articles can be found at …

If you would like to support our work please consider subscribing to our Substack.tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

We endeavour to catch as much of what we hear in court as possible but our live tweeting is not a verbatim transcript. We make every effort to report accurately and will correct relevant inadvertent factual errors. We may use c1s or cs to avoid tweets being suppressed.

Abbrevs used:
C/SP - Claimant, Sandy Peggie
NC - Naomi Cunningham, C’s barrister
MG - Margaret Gribbons
C’s solicitor
R/Board - first respondent, Fife Health Board
R2/DU - second respondent, Dr B Upton
JR - Jane Russell, KC, barrister for Rs
AW - Adam Watson, solicitor for Rs

J - Employment Judge Alexander Kemp
ET - Employment Tribunal
P1, P2 - additional panel members
CR - changing room
AE - Accident & emergency department
B&H - Bullying and harassment
SS - Single sex
HR - Human Rights
TW - Transwoman
HI - Hate incident

PCP - provision, criteria or practice is a rule/policy/ practice that can put ppl at a disadvantage based on certain characteristics. The term is used in employment law to assess whether an employer’s actions create different outcomes for employees based on their characteristics.

KS - Kate Searle, DU's supervisor and A&E consultant
ED - Esther Davidson, SP’s line manager
SF - Stuart Fraser, SP’s RCN Rep
AG - Angela Glancy, headed up SP's investigation
IX - investigation
CX or FC - (formal) complaint
DX - disciplinary
FtP - fitness to practice

We are in the room and waiting for the Judge.

J We have new productions. First page no ?
NC If metadata it's 908
J 909 is metadata - they discuss numbering.
NC there is email from Miles (spelling?) [rota]
NC we have applied for order for corres with search terms from R. We have been flat out from yesterday

JR You have my applic
J not to me yet. We'll deal with both applications tog. DU you are still under oath.
NC You said in yest evidence you worked on snickers bar child and the time SP asked you to do obj was a different patient

DU y
NC you worked on snickers patient and also with SP on another date
DU Y can't remember date. Don't remember SP with snickers patient.
NC are you confident SP not working on sn patient.
DU Don't recall any other staff other than consultant on that child

NC So worried c C attitude. Wouldn't you have noticed re that incident?
DU only if she'd behaved inappropriately. I was busy with child - serious condition.
NC all work be serious cond
DU no - a range. That's what triage is for
NC Triage - not sick ppl don't clutter Jesus

DU - yes, but lots of diff seriously unwell ppl. Prioritise closing airways.
NC SP can remember working with you on snickers bar. You don't want it to be that patient cos pins incident to H'een and you didn't want to give AG precise date

DU lots of q
NC no. One q. You know that giving AG specific date for IX will allow her to look for corroboration which she won't find
DU I can't be confident of date cos I didn't record it. We see more than 1 patient in shift.

NC You were deliberately obscuring date. Same as not limited dates between oct and dec earlier.
DU No interest in making IX difficult. Perhaps I was under pressure - I gave a correct range of dates. Whether or not precise or not up to you. I don't have info c date

NC Turn to FC. You say on the one occasion we treated a resus patient tog was when she asked me to take obs

DU Only occasion when she asked me to do something odd.

NC But you say, on the one occasion.. and then you say what happened.

DU Then i worded awkwardly,. Don't recall working with SP on snickers patient so didn't mention it - poss cos SP didn't do anything unusual or hostile then.
NC Y'day went through chronology. 24/12 CR incident told Pitt

DU Also on 25/12 cos midnight
NC Also at that time you made note on phone in carpark
DU Early xmas day
NC 3am you sent email to KS copy Sr P. Also around then sent an email to BMA. Then BMA on 29 and phone call. 3 Jan sent draft FC to BMA

NC Sorry. Confused. Email from DU to BMA re thanking for advice and going forward to drafting FC

[Robert Ronald and Stephanie X at BMA.]
You met with KS. S BMA says hope mtg went well.

NC KS asks you for written summary.

NC That was 12/1. on 15th email from ED to DU, asking for initial incident at xmas. She is chasing.
DU Could call it chasing if you like. Asking for statement.
ND She making distinction between incident at Xmas and background.
DU Y

NC by 15/1 ED knows something c resus complaint.
DU. Can't infer. Asking c xmas incident. She knows background but not what background is - from this email.
NC do you know any more about what b ground she might know?
DU no

NC RR from BMA sends you your FC doc with his comments.
DU Yup. That's the doc.
DU DOn't have numbers. Oh, yes I do. Go for it.
NC 15/1 You forward to RR an email from KS on 3 Jan. Your reply to that email - I'll read your suggestions and adjust.

NC 16/1 Yr reply to ED. You say I am waiting on BMA advice re wording.
DU y
NC but you had BMA comments previous day and we so no further advice c wording. Not correct.
DU Is correct. [reads] I understood that I was still waiting on further advice from RR.

NC Was there any further advice.
DU Not that I could find, no email. He may have phoned me.
NC 18/2 email from ED. Following today mtg I require a statement from you re incident. I know you are waiting on BMA advice. She is getting impatient?

DU Can't speak to her patience. Direct tone but usual in emails.
NC 6 days after RR email you respond to him - you've had update from nurse in charge of IX who wants statement by 24/1. Could you clarify process.
DU That's what it says in the email.
NC BMA email not c wording.

DU I took it to be.
NC 6 days. Under pressure by ED. Asking to clarify process is delaying?
DU No. He knew I needed to do it by 24/1 - I was asking for advice by that date.

NC 22/1 your email to ED saying you are still waiting for BMA. How did BMA respond to q re clarifying process.
DU If no email from BMA re that, I presume they phoned
DU I have no recollection of how BMA responded,
NC any recollection of what BMA response was
DU no

NC You finally give ED your response. Attachment. Something has happened for you to feel ready to send ED doc. You have been stalling while waiting for BMA advice. What was advice from BMA.
DU Don't recall BMA replied or what advice was, re my previous answer.

DU I submitted by 23/1 for 24. That's how deadlines work.
NC You gave clear evidence re what happened on xmas eve 2023, inc details of order going to toilet/washing hands etc. But telling tribunal whether you got further advice from BMA or what advice was.

DU I don't recall any further advice or what it was. But would categorise advice re BMA far less memorable than the traumatic incident on xmas. Have talked about that with ppl a lot more than talks with BMA.

NC so whatever advice from BMA as reason you were delaying didn't make a sufficient impact

DU Disagree was delaying. Don't remember any advice from BMA.

NC HI. That is the version that admits missing patient and C handing over for you to do obs.

DU yes but also omits info re xmas. ED said I could provide evidence re background in IX. [reads] So I gave her just the incident.

NC We see ED saying to commence IX it's sufficient to give initial incident and can give IX background later. Let me get started.

NC I'm suggesting implication is to get me started, the minimum is incident and anything else we can get later.
DU But I took her response to my asking 'is it just the incident' to mean just that. Will give background when interviewed. My reading of ED words.

NC 1 May. RR email that he will reassign your case to Nicola, a senior. They are employment advisers not lawyers.
DU Every email I could find from Ms McIsaac I have provided.

NC As we are resuming hearing later, may be an order for 3rd party disclosure for BMA re docs

NC So please think c answer. Sure you have provided all communications between RR and NM.
DU I am sure I have provided all emails between RR and NM and me. Have searched to best of my ability. Not a computer person.

NC I suggest reason for delay in submitting HI doc you were urgently taking BMA advice re regulatory risk for you in raising serious prof complaints agst SP so long after incident and risk on yourself for making accusations against SP
DU No. Took long cos waiting for BMA

DU Wouldn't need BMA advice re making false allegations against a colleague cos I'm not in the habit of making false allegations against a colleague.

J Five minute break

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp Please unroll