Sandie Peggie loses legal fight against nursing union
The tribunal has rejected all complaints Sandie Peggie made against the Royal College of Nursing
NHS Fife nurse Sandie Peggie has lost her legal fight against her trade union.
A 37-page ruling determined the Royal College of Nursing did not subject Ms Peggie to any direct discrimination over her gender critical beliefs.
Ms Peggie had brought three complaints against the RCN, including failing to advise her about potential discrimination claims, refusing to fund legal representation for a second tribunal claim, and failing to seek sufficient assurances about single-sex facilities in the workplace. Judge Sangster rejected all three complaints.
The ruling concluded: “The claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination do not succeed and are dismissed.”
The tribunal did accept that Ms Peggie’s belief that biological sex is immutable is protected under the Equality Act 2010, but found the union was not motivated by those beliefs.
It also found that her RCN representative Stuart Fraser had acted consistently with normal procedures, and accepted the union’s refusal to support a second tribunal as Ms Peggie had already instructed independent lawyers.
The ruling found that Mr Fraser “did not perceive [Ms Peggie’s] views as anything more than a disagreement about the use of changing facilities”. It added: “The claimant did not tell RCN Direct, or Stuart Fraser, that she had a philosophical belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.
“She did not refer to holding gender critical or sex realist beliefs (as she was unaware of these terms at the time).
“For this reason alone, the tribunal concluded that the claimant’s complaint in relation to the first asserted act of direct discrimination does not succeed.”
The judgement added: “The tribunal concluded that Stuart Fraser’s actions were not, consciously or subconsciously, influenced by the claimant’s protected belief.”
The tribunal also said Norman Provan was “credible and reliable” when he ruled that the union would not provide legal support to Ms Peggie in her second claim against NHS Fife as it did not fall within its rules.
The ruling said: “The tribunal concluded that the claimant’s protected belief did not, consciously or subconsciously, influence Norman Provan’s decision.
“The tribunal accepted Norman Provan’s evidence regarding the reasons for his decision.”
Finally, the tribunal rejected allegations over RCN’s response to requests for assurances about single-sex changing facilities and protection for staff holding gender critical beliefs. It found that union official Gillian Tait had contacted the health board for relevant assurances, but did not circulate the correspondence to the wider union membership as requested by Ms Peggie.
This is the second employment tribunal Ms Peggie has brought over a dispute with transgender Dr Beth Upton. Ms Peggie had objected to sharing a changing room with Dr Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, and was suspended following an altercation in the changing room in December 2023.
Ms Peggie went on to take legal action against both NHS Fife and Dr Upton. She partially won a claim for harassment against NHS Fife in December last year, but all other allegations, including all allegations against Dr Upton, were dismissed.
During the closing submissions of the case, Ms Peggie’s lawyer Naomi Cunningham said the union was “steeped” in gender ideology. She said: “All the respondent’s relevant conduct was conditioned and caused by its adherence to gender ideology, which is in its nature antithetical to the claimant’s protected belief.”
Ms Cunningham also argued that officers had failed to recognise Ms Peggie as “the victim of a serious injustice” instead of seeing her as “in trouble” for having potentially discriminated against Dr Upton.
Ms Cunningham added: “The gender ideology in which the union has been steeped for years made it impossible for its officers to act vigorously and especially to act publicly, in the best interests of a member whose protected belief was in direct opposition to that ideology.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.