Thread by @tribunaltweets

We shall be tweeting the afternoon session in day 8 of the case at Employment Tribunal in Dundee of Sandie Peggie vs Fife NHS Trust & Dr Upton.

Our coverage of this morning's session is at - a list of the abbreviations used can be found in the thread there.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1889602296952000545

Our substack page includes the entire case coverage and collates the press reporting we have been made aware of tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

We are expecting the hearing to resume after lunch, at 1.30pm.

[People are beginning to come back into the tribunal room; proceedings will begin when the Judge and panel members come in]

[We begin]

JR: [discussing possible problem with a member of the public who had attended this am - missed the start of this because audio not on]

J: So - timings?
NC: I hope to be finished in an hour.
J: Good, let's proceed

NC: First - about your phone notes. It's right AG didn't ask for them, for the investigation?
DU: AFAIrecall no
NC: Nor Esther Davidson?
DU: No

NC: And you didn't volunteer them?
DU: Was not asked for them
NC: Why didn't you volunteer them?
DU: Wasn't asked, I was asked for a summary, assumed notes would be discussed in interview, which it was

NC: Please look at p[]. This is part of C's response to the matters in the disciplinary i/x. Says, there are a no of references to R2 log entries but that these have not been provided. I assume you were asked to after this?
DU: Yes I think so

NC: We know they are in [date] version of the bundle, so when you were asked for them?
DU: Don't know. Emails might show when?
NC: But never asked to supply them to the investigations?
DU: No never asked for them

NC: We see here KS saying she's aware of your logs. Can you say why she seems to think you have logs of EVERY incident?
DU: [too fast - refers back to discussion before lunch]

NC: [page ref] we see no reference here to the resuscitation incident, or any concerns re prof conduct or patient safety?
DU: Disagree. Says here, last para, 'escalation of previous behaviour' re interacting with me.

DU: so I agree there's no explicit ref to resus or prof conduct, but disagree there's no *reference* to them

NC: [page] so this is a Datix. I assume this is some kind of automated alert we are looking at?
DU: I don't know - it looks as if this one is an alert to an investigator, I agree.

NC: Talk me through how you and KS filed the datix.
DU: KS typed, checked with me throughout whether she was getting it right.
NC: And names of submittor would go int?
DU: Yes
NC: And where?
DU would think so yes, haven't done one for a while

NC: There are a number of fields? [lists]
Location, date, brief descr, immediate action taken, personal details (of complainant), impact, likelihood of recurrence, immediate treatment given, remedial action to reduce risk of recurrence, others involved in observing or reporting.

DU: Yes those sound reasonably likely, but I can't absolutely confirm those are they as it's a while since I did one.

NC: All we see on the page we looked at is the name of the person ?to investigate, the brief description, and a link to where s/o can presumably view the full information. We do NOT see all the info that was recorded?
DU: agree

NC: So - more information that we see here
DU: Unless it's somewhere else in the bundle. It's not my role to review Datixes.

NC: Going to look at who on board knew what when re 'hate incident'. your i/v with AG - can we take from this that the decision to make formal complaint happened on 29/12 with KS?
DU No not KS
NC: So with ED on 25/12?
DU not decided, but, option was mentioned then.

NC: We start seeing mention of 'prior behaviours' here? {discussion re KS emails establishes this was probably 29/12 and that yes the Datix is first mention of this]

NC: Turning to 'formal complaint' - drafted around 3rd Jan, sent to BMA as draft then. This is first mention of refusal to engage re 'missing patient'?
DU: no, contemporaneous mention in my phone notes

NC: And first mention of 'resus' patient?
DU: First explicit mention yes
NC: If we look at the metadata, p908.
NC: This is metadata for 'formal complaint - edited'
DU: and the one above is for the draft sent to BMA
NC: Which says created 31/12, last modified 3/1
DU: Agreed

DU: But would like to note that 'formal complaint' is pretty similar to my email to BMA 26/12, if we are talking about 'first mentions'. So first mention of 'resus' incident is actually 26/12, to BMA

NC: That's a written record by you, but it's nothing to do with when the board heard things?
DU: No, and 'formal complaint' wasn't sent to them until later

NC: So p733 we are looking at is the earlier version of 'formal complaint', 31/12-3/1, version without names. Then 'edited' version - created and last modified 23/1, and that's the version the board received, in the June?
DU: Correct

NC P439 'hate incident' - has the same info re Xmas Eve, but no other incidents, and was created & last mod 23/1
DU: Yes

NC: We learned that it was 'hate incident' that you emailed to ED on 23/1 and you told JR that you only ever sent 'formal complaint' 26/12 BMA and Adam Watson 11/6
DU: BMA was 3/1
NC: Indeed

NC: You are sure those were the only times sent
DU: Only ones I could find searching my emails
NC: We can assume BMA would not have forwarded it to anyone. Confidential
DU: I assume so

NC: If we turn to p799.
NC: We see here Adam Watson sending on to the board 11/6
DU: Yes
NC: He says 'I assume this was forwarded to the ix team, it's not dated but seems to be what started the process'. You say he must be mistaken?
DU: Yes

NC: Nobody but BMA and Adam Watson had seen it?
DU: AFAIK
NC: So until 11/6 nobody on board had seen it?
DU: AFAIK

NC: [page ref] this is part of ED i/x with AG. If you look at the answer to Q9. She says she had statement from Beth that if SP with a patient and BU walks in SP walks out. She says this is from you. Must be referring to 'formal complaint'?

DU: I couldn't find having sent anything to ED excpet 'hate incident'
NC: She says "given a statement from DU saying that'. Must mean in writing?
DU: Agree, but if you are saying I gave her 'formal complaint' I disagree.

NC: She seems to be saying that there's a need to act on this quickly.
DU: Yes
NC: This is late April - before you discussed the 'resus' incident at interview in May.

NC: If we look at that - you talk of previous incidents and AG says this is first mention - so she has only seen 'hate incdient' at thsi point?
DU: Yes

NC: But ED i/x meeting does seem to mention seeing it. So your statement to JR about what sent to board when is incorrect?
DU: no she says she has seen A statement, not actually 'hate incident'. I searched my emails. Only sent HI to BMA and AW.

NC: [reads] does this not imply that you are thinking here that AG *has* seen 'formal complaint'
DU: Disagree [I think, makes reference to another doc had written called 'oral complaint]

NC: A few Qs about why there may not have been more complaints about your use of CR. SP has said others were also unhappy, you said to JR you were not aware of any.

NC: You have said you are an empathetic person. Can you use that skill to say why those people might not have mentioned them?

DU: Pppl could have felt intimated by I'm not aware anyone was, certtainly didn't try to, sad to thinkk they felt could not approach me.

NC: 3 possibilities I think 1. Nobody else had any concerns 2. Some ppl did but didn't want to hurt your feelings. 3. Ppl did have concerns but too frightened to express them.

DU: Agree that probably covers the range but ofc can't say which if any apply.
NC: Ppl can only raise, by saying you are a man and this is the women's CR
DU: Am not a man. And, they cd say transwoman.

NC: But if you say 'ciswoman' and 'transwoman' that's implying 2 kinds of woman.
DU yes bcs there are
NC: So you wd be forcing people to say this is a CR for only a subset of women.

NC: Having to use your framing forces complainer to make herself look bigoted.
DU: TWAW anyway. And the EA manages to use language that is not pejorative when describing possible exceptions

NC: You and legal team have done everything possible to make it impossible for C to express her objections in clear language.
DU: She has been able to express. The clear terms are 'transwoman' and 'transman'. Those are the clear terms. Needed for clear conversation

NC: You aimed to force the C to use language that means she must accept your belief, instead of expressing her own that 'transwomen' are men.
DU: Protected beliefs are not necessarily not bigoted, and don't mean you can be disrespectful to colleagues

NC: You're determined that she must not express her protected belief
DU: She can express, but in a work context must respect colleagues. Not appropriate.

NC: How could SP express her belief that TW are men, in a way acceptable to you
DU: She could say 'trans person'
NC: How could SP say you should not be in the CR becuase you are male?
DU: I'm not male. Just bcs a belief is protected, doesn't make it true.

NC: The control of language that has been imposed and enforced, including on tribunal hearings up to this one, mean it's terrifying for SP to say that TW are men.
DU: I don't think she was scared. Lots of people say it. Lots said about me online in the last few weeks.

NC: In this climate, partic of control over language, isn't it much more likely that fear of adverse consequences, perhaps with some also not wishing to hurt your feelings, is the reason there were not more complaints about you in CR?

DU: Disagree. Everyone was accepting of trans ppl, at least until more recently furore blew up. And if not wanting to hurt my feelings that's respecting me, that's all I was wanting.

NC: Must have been clear to you that SP found your presence in the CR on 24/12 intimidating and humiliating.
DU: No if she was intimidated she wdn't have started the convo, wdn't have waited till only 2 of us.

DU: She was intending to confront me.
NC: Are you saying she was lying about the menstrual flood?
DU: No, but she shd have gone into the cubicle straight away not confronted me.

NC: Are you saying she is lying about feeling intimidated
DU: Saying she did not act that way. Confrontational, agressive, compared me to rapist, intrusive Qs, harassing me, repeatedly, that is what happened.

NC: That bullying of her by you was all about you being male and her being female -
JR: Object. Not bullying.
J: This is what the case is about. It is the C's position
JR: I understand. But given response - repetitive Q. But I give way.
J: thank you.

NC: That bullying of her by you was all about you being male and her being female.
DU: Is that a Q
NC: Yes - agree or disagree
DU: Disagree. Was in space I had permission to use.

NC: She was protesting against you presence, invasion of privacy
DU: She didn't mention that, talked about safety
NC: You were determined to punish SP for standing up to you
DU Not at all. no interest in punishing anyone.

DU: Have kept saying not interested in punishment, revenge - but in respect and justice.

NC: You could have decided not to put in a complaint. BMA suggests informal resolutions.
DU: I didn't put in formal complaint, I did a Datix.
NC: That *is* a formal complaint
DU: I didn't know that. Was surprised when it escalated to IX

NC: p738. End of your email to BMA on 26/12. You say v upset and shaken and considering formal complaint, worried about consequences of both submitting and not submitting.

NC You are taking steps to remove her frorm the workplace.
DU: No, only not to have to work with her, which, is what we have now

NC: We see emails KS/ED discussing shift adjustments. That's all that was needed?
DU: Yes but that's not the respect part. I wanted apology for the harassment. Formal note of it occurring. All parts of process.

NC: P471 KS ix. Re the 28/12 incident. Q8 KS says DU still pretty upset because work crossover with SP. This is where you invented new incident to make sure SP removed, and that's what happened.

DU: Did not invent. It occurred. I'm not pressing board to remove SP - not in my control and anyway not what I wanted. Only wanted peaceful resolution re the harassment of me.

NC: You are disappointed SP still working.
DU: No, unhappy that harassment not resolved, unhappy dragged through the papers. Am sure SP is competent. Other than her bigoted opinions I have no probs her being at work.

NC P969 this is Nicola [] BMA adviser. Pls read the 2 paras to yourself.
DU Yes have read
J: A little longer please

NC: You are complaining re the dept unable to guarantee your safety, you feel exposed to risk of encountering SP. Clear indication you are looking for BMA assistance in increasing pressure on board to have SP remove.

DU: No, for guidance how to achieve real safety at work - at that point had only had assurances re the next shift or so.

NC: This is about punishing SP
DU: No not interested in punishment, vengeance, retribution. In justice.

NC: Which you do by going straight to ED, seeking her out; making up incident on 28/12 re socks/plaster room; embellishing incident w/Rohanna. All for punishment.

DU: No not punishment. All about wanting resolution, way forward. Nothing made up.

NC: You made up that SP asked about chromosomoes
DU: No she said it. Why would I make it up. Not interested in punishment.

NC: Pack of lies. Lies which cd not only have lost SP her job, cd have had her struck off.
DU: Not lies. Not interested in punishment or striking off. Her harassment. Not safe to work with her, but not interested in punishement.

NC: It's all about controlling your female colleagues
DU: No not interested in that, it's not about that, it's about treating colleagues with respect.

NC: Done your best to end SP 30 year unblemished career, to punish her for standing up to you.
DU: No. Interested in getting situation resolved so we can get back to ER work. Interested in justice. Peaceful resolved.

NC: There is a bully in this story, but it's not he 50 year old nurse wanting a women's CR to deal with a menstrual flood.
DU: She bullied me. If you are implying I am the bully that's wrong.

NC: No further Qs
J: We will take 5 minute break

[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll