01 - Summary of the 2025 Bury College Employment Tribunal
This week we will publish a set of articles written while waiting for the judgment. The articles were not published at the time so as not to interfer with the decision making process.
Bury College was taken to an Employment Tribunal on the 06 May 2025 which ran over three days.
As this was a
public hearing, all the names mentioned below are already in the public domain
in relation to this case.
The Incident
and Informal Resolution
An exchange of words occurred in early September 2023 when Student A was misbehaving during a lesson.
The exact wording of the classroom exchange has been reported differently. According to Assistant Manager Shehla Ijaz, the lecturer asked Student A what he would call himself if he behaved that way, to which the student replied, “I would be a retard.” The lecturer then repeated back, “Are you calling yourself retard?” The lecturer’s representative offered a slightly different version: that he had asked the student, “What would your friends say?”, a rhetorical question akin to “What would your parents say?”, and that the student responded, “You’re a retard,” which the lecturer queried back. While the precise phrasing varies, what is clear is that the student first introduced the word “retard” and the lecturer repeated it back in question form.
Student A did not respond to the lecturers query, he simply stopped misbehaving, and the class continued. The teacher left it at that.
Later, Student
B, who was in the class at the time, went to the College reception and told
Linda Lyons that the teacher had called the whole class “retards.” Linda
referred Student B to Shehla Ijaz, the Assistant Curriculum Manager GCSE Maths
and the teacher’s line manager. In her meeting with Shehla, Student B changed
her account, now claiming the teacher had called just her a “retard” in front
of the whole class.
Shehla, a
senior figure in the Maths department, spoke to both the teacher and Student B.
She resolved the issue informally, and closed the matter. No one challenged her
decision at the time. Student B and her mother were happy with the outcome.
Escalation
After Parent Complaint
A few days
later, Student B’s mother, after speaking to Stuart Marsden, made a formal
complaint against the teacher, this time claiming he had actually called a
different student a “retard”; not her daughter, and not the whole class. This
contradicted Student B's earlier accounts. The mother failed to mention in her
complaint, or at any time afterwards, that the issue had already been dealt
with by Shehla Ijaz. Although no new facts were presented, the College reopened
the issue, suspended the teacher, and referred it to the Local Authority
Designated Officer (LADO).
The LADO found
that teacher's actions did not meet the threshold of harm. Under Keeping
Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE), concerns below this threshold should
be managed through a low-level concerns policy, which provides a framework for
managing concerns about teachers and helps correct concerning behaviour at an
early stage.
KCSIE 2023 is
statutory guidance and must be followed; yet, the College ignored it. They did
not initiate a low-level process, nor did they document their reasons. Instead,
they escalated the same facts already reviewed by Shehla into a formal
investigation for gross misconduct.
At Tribunal,
Sarah Walton, the DSL accepted that KCSIE 2023 states that concerns not
meeting the harm threshold are low-level concerns and should be dealt with using the low-level concerns policy, but she would not accept
that the teacher's actions fell below the thtreshold of harm; as far as she was
concerned, it was up to College to determine if the harm threshold was met, not
the LADO.
Suspension and
Investigation Failings
The teacher was
suspended without any explanation as to what alternatives were considered. The
suspension lasted for 27 days, exceeding the College’s 19-day policy review
requirement. No written explanation for the extension was provided. The staff
who made the suspension decision never gave evidence.
The teacher
challenged the accuracy of the investigation notes and requested amendments.
Some were accepted, others were rejected without explanation. The fact some
amendments were made to the notes demonstrates that the College accepted the
notes were not accurate. Despite this, the College failed to confirm with the
teacher that the amended notes were accurate before relying on them to
support dismissal. The College also failed to verify the accuracy of
further notes from the same note taker despite knowing they could be inaccurate;
claiming at Tribunal that it was the teacher's responsibility to ensure the
notes were accurate.
Disciplinary
Hearing and Dismissal
At the
disciplinary hearing, chaired by Deputy Principal Becky Tootell, the teacher
submitted a written defence, apologised for any offence caused, and explained
the context. However, the College framed the issue as if he had called a
student a derogatory name, a claim never supported by evidence or admission.
The hearing
also referenced a second allegation involving a training session, but it was
never discussed or addressed. At tribunal the College absolved themselves of
any stress caused to the teacher by the second allegation; as far as the
College was concerned, the teacher chose to defend that particular allegation,
therefore any additional stress caused by him having to prepare a defence, or
anxiety caused by him waiting for it to be addressed at the disciplinary, was
his own fault.
Despite the
lack of new facts, a prior resolution, and the teacher’s clean record, the
College concluded that gross misconduct had occurred and dismissed him.
The reason for
dismissal was not the teacher saying the word back to Student A, it was, as
disclosed at Tribunal by Becky Tootell, because
“I had no
confidence that this behaviour would not be repeated in the future and this was
a risk to the students and the College; hence the decision to make a finding of
gross misconduct and dismiss”
AND
“a lesser
sanction would present students and the College with a risk”.
A lack of
confidence is only a fair basis for dismissal if it’s grounded in evidence. In
this case, the teacher had no prior disciplinary record, he had apologised
multiple times for repeating the word, said he would not repeat the behaviour
again, and worked without issue for a week following Shehla’s resolution.
The College
carried out no formal risk assessment. The conclusion that he posed an ongoing
risk was speculative, inconsistent, and unsupported by the facts.
Becky’s reason
for dismissal is a subjective interpretation of the teacher’s conduct and
attitude, based on personal judgment, assumptions, and disputed facts, not on
demonstrable risk, pattern of behaviour, or failure to change.
It is also of
note that during the Tribunal, Becky Tootell claimed not to be aware KCSIE
2023 states concerns that do not meet the threshold of harm should be managed
through a low-level concerns policy. The disciplinary chair's lack
of awareness of relevant guidance, like KCSIE 2023, before making a dismissal
decision could be considered a procedural unfairness.
Appeal and
Procedural Contradictions
The appeal was
overseen by Charlie Deane. Becky Tootell also attended the appeal but the
teacher was never informed that she would be there; from his point of view
Becky had ambushed the hearing. Charlie said she was there to provide a summary
of the disciplinary, but she went further than that by asking questions and
arguing points with the teacher, all unchallenged by Charlie.
The dismissal was upheld. Charlie’s reason for upholding the dismissal, as disclosed at Tribunal, was not the teacher repeating the word back to Student A, but mostly because of the the teacher’s approach to the appeal hearing, which was legalistic and technically detailed.
A further reason Charlie put forward for upholding the
dismissal was because he was worried that if he didn't, then students, staff
and the wider community may conclude that the College was legitimising the use
of word "retard". Yet he failed to explain how students, staff and the wider community would become aware of a private matter.
Charlie’s decision to uphold the dismissal was not based on objective risk, repeated misconduct, or safeguarding failure. It was based on how the teacher expressed himself under pressure. Emotional language, speculative community impact, and subjective impressions were substituted for evidence.
One of the
teacher’s appeal arguments was that Shehla had resolved the issue, but this was
skipped over without response. Despite Shehla’s role never being challenged at
the disciplinary or appeal hearings, nor at the tribunal pre-hearing, the College suddenly argued at Tribunal
that she had no authority to handle the complaint.
Critically, the College failed to disclose Shehla’s job description, which could have clarified her responsibilities. Nor did it provide any evidence that her authority was ever questioned at the time she resolved the issue.
Tribunal
Proceedings and Concerns Raised
At Tribunal,
the teacher’s representative challenged the fairness of the entire process. Key
arguments included:
Selective
Quotation of Policies at Tribunal
At Tribunal,
the Respondent’s solicitor cited various passages from College policies to justify the
Teacher’s dismissal for repeating the word “retard” to a student. However,
those same passages were never referenced in relation to Sarah Walton,
the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, who used the exact same word with
the same student. This selective application of policy illustrates a clear
inconsistency in how standards of conduct were enforced. If the language was
indeed a breach of policy for the teacher, then it must also be viewed as such
when used by senior staff, especially those tasked with upholding safeguarding
standards.
What the Judge
Must Decide
The Judge must
first determine what the real reason for dismissal was.
If the real
reason was repeating the word, then the dismissal was unfair because repeating
the word was not the charge put to the teacher; he was therefore dismissed for
something he wasn’t charged with.
If the real
reason was abusing a disabled student by calling them a “retard”, the dismissal would again
be unfair as that charge was never properly investigated or established.
If the real
reason was because the College was worried that the behaviour may be repeated
or, worried about what people may think if they didn’t dismiss the teacher, that too would make the
dismissal unfair as it would be based on unsupported speculation rather than
facts.
Once the Judge
has determined the real reason for dismissal, he must then determine if the
teacher would have been dismissed had a fair procedure been carried out. That
includes deciding whether Shehla had the authority to resolve the matter, and
whether the College’s actions aligned with the legal expectations for internal
processes, safeguarding, and employment standards.
If Shehla’s
resolution was valid, the entire
disciplinary process may have been unnecessary and therefore unfair.
If Shehla’s
resolution was not valid, the College must show that its process was fair, reasonable, and
justified despite the lack of new evidence, flawed suspension, selective
application of policy, and retrospective justifications made only at Tribunal.
We await the judgment.
Comments
Post a Comment