Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. We expect the afternoon session in day 4 of Sandie Peggie's employment tribunal hearing to begin at 1.40 pm.

Naomi Cunningham (NC) will be cross-examining Charlotte Myles (CM), Clinical Services Manager at NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy.

NC: Will start with Qs about decision to revoke the suspension. Your 1st involvement was late fEB, asked to review suspension?
CM: Yes

NC: [ref] Here is Gillian Malone saying she is meeting service manager tomorrow, asking her to meet SP - then you had meeting with GM?
CM: Yes
NC: Met SP 7/3, you said you hadn't any particular docs, to approach with open mind?
CM: Yes correct

NC: [ref] this is letter from you 28/3 to SP telling her risk assessment says return to work with diff shift pattern from DU shd be explored. You mention assemessment of risk - you made the assessment during 7/3 mtg and said, propose to revoke end of that day?
CM Yes

NC: You said it was a rush bcs keen to get SP back to work? Is it correct to say decision was pretty much made then?
CM: No not really - as I said at that time there was no real evidence, only s/he said s/he said. Still Qs about NMC code - will expand further -

CM: When I told dept SP was returning, some staff not happy.
NC: Who?
CM: ED, LC, KS [+another]
NC: How did they express?

CM: Phone conv - ED and LC on speakerphone, said it was the wrong decision, I said, it was my decision -
J: [asks for slow-down, to take notes]

CM: My decision was to have both staff members back in the dept, had had meeting with SP and done full risk assessment .

NC: Cd you tell tribunal, begin with Kate Searle?
CM: Was in KS office -
NC: Why were you there?
CM: To discuss shifts, to get both staff back in workplace. KS expressed unhappiness re SP coming back, said patient safety issues had been raised, said racist to a doctor.

CM: I asked whether formally reported, KS said no, I said then KS culpable for not reporting
NC: What did KS say to that?
CM: Nothing.

NC: What about ED and LC, how did they make feelings known.
CM: Was again when discussing shifts, they raised what MC and KS had raised, I asked whether reported/escalated, they couldn't give me any info re dates, was just hearsay. SP had no complaints previously.

NC: [ref] You were not copied on this at the time - email 26/2 M Jorgenson to GM, asking whether any news re suspension being lifted, GM's response we just looked at - that she was meeting you.

NC Can tribunal conclude here that MJ and GM intention was that suspension should be lifted - subject to your meeting ofc?
CM: Well I didn't know, but yes can see that that seems fair conclusion

NC: Did GM pitch as, we need to get her back?
CM: No I think GM also surprised that I decided to revoke at that point - when I explained she agreed.

NC: Influenced by letter from soliticitor saying shd never have been suspended?
CM: TBH no - I tend not to read things that don't directly affect my work

NC: So on 12/3 you wrote to SP saying you were revoking the suspension
CM: Yes
NC: You met SP 7/3, satisified yourself esp re risk, you presumably didn't fill in the form on the spot?
CM: No - took shorthand notes and filled out later

NC: 12/3 told SP re revoking -
JR: told at meeting, confirmed 12/3
NC: Yes, thank you. Then we have the risk assessment *form* is dated [missed]

NC: And then later, after the meeting, Angela Glancy sent you background paperwork. You hadn't seen it before but it was this that led you to complete the form?
[ref] Bcs you fill in the 'background' info on form - was from GM and AG?
CM: Yes correct

NC: You say, no mention of derogatory terminology, only SP not accepting DU to be female. You say "from the statement" - is that the doc at 779? This is part of the doc AG sent you 10/4?
CM: Yes

NC: You'd read this document - headed 'hate incident' - it's what you refer to as 'from the statement'?
CM: I am not sure - I was also left a print version on my desk which had a brief summary and of the Datix - some of this is not familiar when I had mtg with SP.

NC: When you say 'from the statement' - you are referring to something *other* than 'hate incident' doc?
CM: Yes I think I was working from a summary.
NC: [ref] - is this what you mean?

CM: Yes that's it. From the Datix.
NC: So you say 'no derogatory language mentioned, only SP not accepting DU female. If we look at it - p 634 - written in quite tendentious terms.

NC: Says Nurse A accosted Dr B, [very fast summary - cannot get most] - says aggressive and confrontational manner by SP.

NC: I know this is a while ago but if you look back at p308 - you say no mention of derogatory language. There are 2 candidates for what you mean by "the statement" - one is the Datix, and one is the 'hate incident' doc.

NC: Do you want to reconsider which it was, having looked at the Datix?
CM: [missed]
NC: I'm asking whether you are still sure that by "the statement" you mean the Datix, and not 'hate incident', or is it more likely to be the latter?

CM: It is quite probably both - would have used lots of sources - mindful that what is reported is she-said-she-said, no witnesses, Datix submitted by someone else I believe?
NC: Yes.

NC: So if we start with the assumption it was 'hate incident' you meant, DrU says SP asked 'what are your chromosomes'. There's nothing derogatory there, in such a discussion?

CM: Difficult Q to answer. If we are talking scientific fact then chromosomes, but, ppl can identify as they choose.

NC: A previous witness IB said she didn't know if she was male or female, but would guess F. I am going to say that you are sure you are female?
CM: Yes
NC: XX chromosomes
CM: Assume so!
NC: You're not offended by that?

CM: No not personally, it's a scientific Q. And I know about physiologoy and anatomy.
NC: And humans come in two sexes
CM: Yes indeed, but, pople have every right to identify however they like.

NC: But in a medical context, sex is important and easily determined
CM: Well yes if scientific consideration.

NC: [reads more of DU 'hate incident' doc, inc mention of rapists in prisons]
NC: And again you did not identify anything derogatory here?
CM: I didn't know what the comment re prison was until much later so didn't identify as offensive then, but -

CM - I do now see how s/o else identifying as a woman cd find that offensive.
NC [missed]
CM at this point - this was just one account, I needed to talk to SP to hear other 'side'

NC: And if we look at the Datix as the other candidate for 'the statement'. [ref] If this were what you meant - even this report doesn't make you think SP had said anything derogatory?

CM: The 2 are very different - Datix much more info re trans rapist in prison
NC: Did you know who wrote the Datix?
CM: No and still don't - just know it was someone else.

NC: [ref] You to SP 12/3 saying revoking suspension and only need to sort out non-overlapping shifts now. So now you need to get rotas from Esther for nursing and from consultants for doctor rotas.
CM yes

NC: And both ED and the Drs hostile to SP return?
CM: Yes initially unhappy but I explained it was my decision, to have both SP and DU in the workplace.

NC: Is it fair to say ED and the Drs dragged their feet giving you the info?
CM: I wdn't say fair - I new ED had leave and actually so did I, I can see it cd look like dragged feet but was just about ppl taking leave.

NC: Suggestion to SP of different location, she wasn't happy about that. Minor injuries?
CM: Yes I suggested some places I was manager for
NC: SP wanted her own placement back?
CM: Yes and quite fair to want that.

NC: SP asked that DU not use the female CR?
CM: I explained I couldn't guarantee that because not my decision - only that they wd not be working at the same time.

NC: Can see it was not your ability to say, but, what SP was being told was that any man cd use female CR if the wanted?
CM: I don't know what anyone more senior was saying.
NC: But can you see that saying DrU wd still be using, that is what SP is hearing?

CM {too fast]

NC: Your letter 28/3 reinstating the suspension bcs insistence SP do day shifts, which she couldn't do. Fair summary?
CM: Yes

NC: And letter 1/4 to you SP writes offering to do day shifts at the weekend, as a compromise? Under protest@
CM: Yes, and reaching out to compromise was welcome and appreciated?
J: I don't see 'under protest'?
CM: That was from conversation with SP not the letter.

NC: Email to Belinda Morgan saying you are not designated contact any more, says return to work going well - vindication of your decision?
CM: Yes was pleased that SP back at work and supported. Not really discussed any further but that SP thriving and no further probs.

NC: Very positive but also unsurprising - SP has 30 year career, shd never have been suspended at all
CM: Can only speak to my own role - getting SP back, and back onto her night shifts, was right decision.

NC: Were you aware of any chance in risks that might need to be assessed re SP between early Jan and your 7/3 meeting?
CM: No not aware
NC: Not shown anything re raised risk?
CM: No - went off her record and history, and our mtg, no risk to anybody.

NC: [ref] your letter - esp point 2 - you explain return to day shifts, to allow some oversight, you say oversight of interactions with staff and patients, you explain that there have been some Qs re patients. You knew this was the first SP heard re concern re patients?

CM: Yes had heard of the incident DU claimed re leaving resus patient - but never reported - so my paragraph is about mitigating the risk of any such
NC: You said you did know this was 1st time SP heard re patients?

CM: YEs was told SP was very upset but this was reported to me sort of third hand
NC: Did you talk to SP re this?
CM: Yes I think we spoke on phone - but I said I didn't know much about it - as I say, this is what I mean by the 'oversight' para - to protect SP

NC: Was it your idea to add the allegations re patients to the letter, or did someone tell you to?
CM: Was told that we needed to explain why oversight needed. And that oversight was a protective measure for SP. And there haven't been any incidents.

NC: You were not impressed by the patient safety allegations.
CM: No. Not impressed. Things should be reported, escalated, and done at the time. The staff who spoke to me re the allegations knew my stance on that. I told them they were culpable, if patients didn't get the care.

NC: And if you are told a nurse is so transphobic she will walk out on a resus patient, failing to report and escalate that is itself quite a serious misconduct and FtP issue?

CM: If there was a genuine concern re a resus patient and not reported then yes that is something that should be investigated.

NC: When SP coming back to work, no evidence for any patient safety concerns at all./
CM: Not in any of the parts of the process that I was involved in,.

NC: Is it a reasonable inference that you were being told to include the patient safety allegations bcs more senior people were desperate to have a reason for the initial suspension, and to have the day shifts pushed to make that look more convincing?

CM: No - the day shift suggestion was one of the things I came up with. And wd have been a cooling-off period.

NC: Your letter of 28/3 - re day shifts and supervising - the only reason for it wd be patient safety claimed reasons?
CM: Not really - wd always suggest days for a phased RtW bcs that's when line managers etc are around. So first month wd usually be days.

NC: Presumably all the steps the board took, that you took, around the suspensions. All unwanted by SP? Wd be unwanted by anyone.
CM: Yes unwanted but the transparency was important - to ensure that SP safe and everyone else - for SP's good too.

NC: Always humiliating to be suspended.
CM: Can agree with that - I know SP was very upset, with her long career, no incidents, can completely empathise with that.

NC: Bound to be humiliating to have conditions on the RtW implying you can't do your job?
CM: Was not my intention - as I've explained, that was about following the policies more than the invididual.

NC: I do have a few more Qs but perhaps this would be a good time to take a break?
J: Yes we will take short break

[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll