Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the second half of the afternoon session in the hearing at employment tribunal Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton. Part 1 of the afternoon is here

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1947274524195537020

The court is currently taking a short break and will resume about 14:50

[We resume]

NC: The board has at various points laid much stress on the fact that no one but SP had complained re DU using the CR. Were you aware of any other unhappiness about it?
CM: No not aware.

NC: Given what happened to SP when she did complain, can you think of a reason why nobody else might have complained?
CM: We needed to have policy about treating everyone fairly, human rights - when it comes to how SP was treated - I was not primarily involved in early stages.

NC: YOu mentioned finding summary info on your desk. Can you explain more?
CM: Yes, just came in and found papers on my desk with an FYI note. Cd have been from my PA. I did ask HR but nobody was available so I did my own research, going into the review.

NC: A printout with a post-it on your desk. Can you remember how many pages?
CM: Just a couple of pages, basic info eg how long SP had been at the ED - bcs I'd never met her before. So very generic preparatory info.

NC: A single document?
CM: Yes am pretty sure it was. Have not been able to find my copy.
NC: Do you know who wrote it?
CM: No

NC: Were you surprised by it?
CM: Not really - ppl do quite often leave papers for me.
NC: If it had been emailed you'd have a copy but I can imagine papers are easy to lose?
CM: Yes indeed - I did have it with me in the bundle for the mtg but I haven't been able to find later.

NC: Going bac to 'no derogatory language, only SP not accepting DU female". Is it possible that you meant not the Datix *and* not the 'hate incident' doc, but you meant this summary on your desk?
CM: Honestly can't say.

NC: We've alluded to what you heard from KS and MC - what about from Esther D?
CM: Same as KS and MC - that allegations of walking away from patients, that homophobic and racist, but again nothing documented - third hand - hearsay

NC: Spiteful tittle-tattle then?
CM: As I say I made sure to stick solely to brief, to review suspension.
NC: And what did Louise Curran say?
CM: Again same rumours - something about Donald Trump. But. Nothing harmful to the board. Ppl entitled to private views.

NC: Just a few more Qs. This morning - you said something re discussions / enquiries you made with estates. You were asked what you were looking for, and you said it was esclated to GM, and it was about what spaces available. What form did this all take?

CM: So this rose out of the complaint - I think GM went to Belinda Morgan in Estates - I wasn't really involved -
NC: Were there emails, meetings?
CM: I don't know - it was actioned so presumably the process happened.

NC Who is deputy director estates?
CM Paul Bishop.

NC: Email from you to ED & other re your 7/3 meeting. There is mention of saying male, he, and that this was deliberate misgendering, but that now that you've learned more about this process you ahve better understandign of the language.

NC: So you now understand that if SP wants to object to DU in the CR, she has to use clear language to do that?
CM: It's not the language I would use, but I understand why SP would re s/o transgender in the CR.

NC: No way SP *could* have expressed her discomfort in a way acceptable to DU and KS?
CM: I would always say she/her for DU bcs how identifies
NC: You don't use the CR?
CM: No

NC: If you were sharing with DU and you were unconfortable about it, how wd you epxress that?
CM: Well I can't really bcs I share rugby changing rooms with trans players, but I do completely see why SP wd use her language.

NC [missed - I think re a trans patient]
CM: SP seemed perfectly OK with it - empathetic - I had no concerns at all.
NC: There is nothing wrong with feeling sorry for ppl so unhappy with their bodies they want to change them?

CM: Yes it's good and natural to empathise - in many circs not just this one, but including this one.
NC: And to feel sorry for ppl who get terribly upset with others who don't fully accept [missed]
CM[ missed]

NC: DO you know roughly how many ppl used the CR?
CM: Maybe 200? V much a guess.
NC: Just as a matter of logic - letting DU use the room, means all 200 of them lost single-sex space for changing?

CM: Not sure - my understanding was, ppl get to use the single-sex space they identify with, I may not know enough about this?
NC: Not asking about the law - that's for me and JR - am asking you: none of those 200 women now had guarantee of single-sex space?

CM: Well if there's only one objection - ppl should be able to use room they identify with.

NC: You say, if only 1 person complaining it isn't a problem. Do you accept that a large proportion of women are sexual abuse survivors?
CM: Yes
NC: And some women from religious backgrounds have particular modesty requirements re opposite sex? Can't use the room?

NC: Some of your workforce have these considerations?
CM: Yes - but hospital does have other facilities, single cubicles, some further away yes but exist.
NC: ANd you won't know which of your staff have religious reasons? Or sexual trauma?
CM: No, wouldn't know always.

NC: So if a woman does have a reason for particularly wanting a single sex space? The policy was, she must lose the space, and go elsewhere?
CM: Management shd find a solution that works for everyone. Follow policy, legislation, do the best we can.

NC: Thinking about it now - if women do have special reasons, it's not right they should have to go tell a manager? About sexual abuse?
CM: No - shd not have to disclose sexual abuse. But, this is a situation - evolving workforce, evolving world. Trying to do best for all parties

CM: Wd really have to think about this - can't answer now.
NC : Not fair to compromise 200 women to satisfy 1 man.
CM: Dr U identifies as a woman, that's how I think, so that's not what it was.

CM: Everybody shd be accommodated, but, how we do that is out of my remit.

NC: No more questions.

P: We looked at a page, you said you'd met Beth and explained the RtW and wanted DU to hear from you. Can you say more?

CM: It's a workplace where things are discussed all the time, not always correctly, so wanted to explain to DU that it was my decision here, wanted to support both DU & SP. DU took it quite well, better than I'd expected.

P: You said "on shift"?
CM: Yes we went into the wellness room - there were a few tears, it was a difficult conversation, but I was glad to be able to explain to DU in person.

J: Did you see a RA doc re the original suspension?
CM: No
J: Did you ask for it?
CM: I asked for the original documents but they came later.
J: Who did you email?
CM: Angela Glancy.

J: Did you email before or after your meeting?
CM: After.
J: More about the RA doc?
CM: It was intiated by Jamie Doyle. It's a logged doc - tracks changes.
J: Did you fill out all at once?
CM: Two sessions - did background the next day.

J: When was this?
CM: I will have done the first bit the same day as it came from JD [they check] 9/4 and the background bit 10/4

J: You referred to poss of getting C back into workplace - is that kind of the default position? Or specific to SP? Or you were told to?
CM: Well we don't normally like to suspend ppl at all. And then we review every 4 weeks. So when it came to me, had already been one extension.

J: You were asked bcs Angie Shephard ill - do you know when she went off?
CM: No, sorry
J: And she came back?
CM: I think mid April, it was 19/4 I was told to step away bcs AS would take over.

J: Take over what?
CM: Anything to do with the RtW
J: But that had happened on 14/4?
CM Yes but we like to review RtW after 4 weeks too.
J: Ah I see, a check after phased return. Are there checks once back to normal?
CM: Yes cd happen, but not common.

J: So normally s/o wd just go back to their normal days.
CM: Yes

J: That's all I have, Ms Russell?

JR: [ref p308] Cross exed about the 'no derogatory language' and the prison comment which you didn't at the time know much about. Do you *now* think it's derogatory?

CM: I think inappropriate comment but not derogatory?
JR: You described it as a hate comment.
NC: Not sure it's OK for CM to answer that
J: Yes - it's not a question!

JR: [missed]
CM: But that was in the Datix, not by DU, it's not in DU document. If it was said, it would be inappropriate to call someone a rapist.

JR: Did you know who the rapist was?
CM: No not until tribual got under away, Adam Watson explained, had been unaware till then

JR: YOu mention ED saying re racist and homophobic comments. Can you recall the racist comments?
CM: Was told SP had called a Dr a 'paki' - but it had not been logged and when I asked who it was, ED took a while to answer, and it seems the Dr in question couldn't recall it.

JR: Was this a dr? A consultant?
CM: Yes
JR: When was the comment to dr made?
CM: No date / time given and the Dr couldn't recall.
JR: When was Dr approached?
CM: Don't know.

JR: And homophobic comments?
CM: Just told she disapproved of ppl being gay - was told unhappy bcs her daughter gay - but I don't know at all.

JR: You said 200 women use the room. How many complainted other than SP
CM: Not aware of any others.

JR: Re your answer to J about email to AG. [ref p 776]
JR: This is you to AG 10/4. You say "cd you send the electronic notes". Is this the email you meant to judge?
CM: Yes

JR: That's all.
J: [releases CM]
J: We will take another 5 minute break
JR: If I may - we are not having Lauren Harris giving evidence - so no further witness today.
J: So who tomorrow?
JR: Kate Searle and then [missed]

[some discussion of additions to bundle etc]

[SESSION ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll