Sandie Peggie's views had 'no bearing' on refusing legal support, union says

A nursing union has told a tribunal it did not give Sandie Peggie legal advice because her case did not fit with its rules – and that the decision had nothing to do with her gender critical views.

Peggie claims the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) failed to properly support and advise her after she was suspended over a complaint about her behaviour by a transgender doctor. The RCN disputes the claim.

Norman Provan, the union's associate director, told the tribunal that he considered Peggie's request for legal advice, but decided against it because she had independently sought her own solicitor.

He said the nurse's views had "no bearing" on this decision.

This is the second employment tribunal Peggie has brought over the dispute with Dr Beth Upton, a biological male who identifies as a woman.

The nurse objected to sharing a changing room with the doctor at the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy and the two had disagreements on the subject which came to a head in December 2023.

The nurse was suspended shortly afterwards and, after seeking her own independent legal representation, took both NHS Fife and Upton to tribunal - which became a high-profile and controversial case.

Peggie partially won a claim for harassment against NHS Fife in December last year, but her other allegations of discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

Central to Peggie's most recent claim is that she felt the union should have provided her with legal advice after her representative Stuart Fraser made contact with her in early January 2024.

Weeks after this Peggie had a meeting with then-Alba MP Neale Hanvey, who put her in touch with the campaign group Sex Matters.

The group provided Peggie with some funding and by May, she had launched employment tribunal action - with her own lawyer Margaret Gribbon - against both the health board and Dr Upton.

She continued to seek legal assistance from the union, which was formally refused by Norman Provan in January 2025.

Provan told the latest tribunal about circumstances where the union would not provide members with legal advice.

He said this included if they had sought independent legal advice, and that members were made aware of this rule on the RCN website and in writing.

Provan said Peggie's case "didn't fit those rules" and he had "applied those rules as I would in any case".

Asked by the RCN's lawyer, David Hay KC, whether the nurse's gender-critical beliefs had any influence on his decision, he replied: "They had no bearing on my decision. I applied the rules of the organisation."

Peggie's lawyer Naomi Cunningham argued that the RCN had adopted a "gender identity belief", but Provan disagreed.

Cunningham said the union could be seen "celebrating" this belief through photographs at Pride events and its sale of merchandise depicting the 'progress Pride' flag – an updated version of the traditional rainbow flag which incorporates transgender colours.

Asked to explain why the RCN did not also offer merchandise in support of Christian, atheist or vegan beliefs, Provan said: "No, I don't work in the area where we design our merchandise."

The lawyer also pointed to RCN guidance which advises staff on how to treat transgender patients. She put it to Provan that this was an "adherence" to a gender identity belief.

Provan replied that he could not answer the question simply, and that the guidance was to help nurses treat people with "dignity and respect".

Turning to the details of Peggie's case, Cunningham said that Provan could have used his discretion to offer the nurse legal advice even though she had instructed her own lawyer.

Provan reiterated his position that discretion would only be used if a member was unaware of the union's rules about not seeking independent legal advice.

Cunningham argued it was the union's role to identify situations where legal representation would be appropriate once it had heard the member's story.

Provan said that in his experience, legal advice would not be offered at such an early stage because it was important to hear an employer's side of the story.

He said: "We will not usually look to raise any legal case until such a time as we have a very clear understanding of the case."

The tribunal, held before judge Melanie Sangster in Dundee, continues.