Bury College Employment Tribunal

Bury College has repeatedly claimed in public that it is an inclusive institution with “no room for discrimination of any kind.” But evidence from the recent employment tribunal tells a very different story, one where the College applies its standards only when convenient, and only when there is a risk of reputational damage. Saying the Word in Private: No Consequences During the tribunal, Sarah Walton, the College’s own Designated Safeguarding Lead, admitted she used the word “retard” directly to Student A during her investigation. Walton acknowledged under cross-examination that she knew the word could cause harm to the student, but used it anyway. Despite this admission, Walton was never investigated, never disciplined, and faced no consequences. According to the College’s own line of reasoning at tribunal, the use of the word was only unacceptable when it came from the maths lecturer. When Parents Complain: Suddenly Offensive Contrast that with what happened to the lecturer....

After losing at tribunal for procedural unfairness, Bury College has attempted to defend its decision to dismiss a long-serving maths lecturer. A spokesperson told the press: “Bury College is an inclusive College and has no room for discrimination of any kind. Whilst we are disappointed that process errors deemed the dismissal unfair, the College is confident the decision to dismiss was correct.”   But this selective framing leaves out a crucial element of the judgment: the College itself broke multiple policies and procedures throughout the process.   A Double Standard The College treated the lecturer’s single use of the word, repeated back to a student who had used it first, as so severe that dismissal was the only option. Yet the tribunal record shows that the College itself: * Ignored its own Complaints Policy, fast-tracking a mother’s complaint to Stage 2 when it should have started at Stage 1. * Ignored the Low Level Concerns Policy, even after the LADO (...

On the final day of the Bury College Employment Tribunal, a pivotal and troubling moment unfolded during the Respondent’s cross-examination of the Claimant. It revolved around whether the Claimant knew that Student A had a learning disability. The Claimant had consistently stated throughout the disciplinary process and tribunal that he did not know Student A had a learning disability. He testified that had he known, he would have been more careful with his words. But in a sudden shift, the Respondent’s solicitor introduced, for the first time, a new claim: that the Claimant did know, or should have known, because the student’s disability status was “on the college system” and that the Claimant had access to that system. Surprise Evidence, No Prior Disclosure This was the first time in the entire proceedings that this claim had been made. It had not been raised in the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, the appeal process, or in any of the documents disclosed in advance of t...

In the employment tribunal involving Bury College and a dismissed teacher, serious concerns have been raised about the role played by Charlie Deane, who chaired the appeal hearing. His conduct, decisions, and admissions under cross-examination may have significant implications for the tribunal’s judgment on procedural fairness. This article outlines the key failings and breaches attributed to Mr. Deane based on tribunal evidence. 1. Appeal Decision Based on Irrelevant and Improper Factors Mr. Deane admitted that his decision to uphold the dismissal was based on the available evidence "much of which was [the teacher's] approach in the appeal hearing" which was "litigious and technical", not on the core allegation itself. He also cited concerns about how the College might be perceived if the teacher remained in post, referencing potential reactions from students, staff, and the wider community. These are speculative and irrelevant grounds. Employment decision...

The recent employment tribunal involving a dismissed teacher from Bury College has cast serious doubt over the role of Deputy Principal Becky Tootell, who chaired the disciplinary hearing that led to the teacher’s dismissal. Testimony and documentation presented during the public hearing highlighted multiple procedural irregularities, questionable judgments, and breaches of policy directly attributed to her. This article examines the key alleged breaches and procedural failings by Ms. Tootell and their potential implications for the tribunal’s determination of fairness. 1. Dismissal Based on Speculation, Not Evidence Becky Tootell stated in her witness statement that her reason for dismissal was not based on the teacher using the word “retard,” but rather her lack of confidence that the behaviour would not be repeated. Her justification for a finding of gross misconduct included the claim that: “A lesser sanction would present students and the College with a risk… I had no confid...

As the Employment Tribunal deliberates on the high-profile Bury College dismissal case, growing attention is being paid to the conduct of Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and the investigator tasked with handling the allegation against the Claimant. Tribunal evidence reveals a concerning catalogue of procedural failings, omissions, and double standards that raise fundamental questions about her fitness for the role and the fairness of the process she led. Double Standards in Language Use Central to the case was the teacher’s use of the word “retard”, repeated back to a student who had said it first. Yet, Sarah Walton herself admitted to using the same word to the same student and acknowledged she knew it could be damaging. Despite this, she was not reprimanded, investigated, or even criticised, a stark contrast to the treatment of the Claimant, who was dismissed. The College's selective enforcement of standards calls its impartiality into question. ...

During the Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, serious questions emerged about how evidence was obtained from Student A, the very student at the centre of the original incident. Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and the person responsible for conducting the investigation, admitted under questioning that Student A had refused to come into college for an interview . Despite this, she proceeded to phone him and questioned him anyway,  a move that now appears to contradict the principles of safeguarding and fair process , especially considering that, according to the Respondent, Student A was known to be vulnerable and had already left college. Forcing an Interview on a Reluctant Student? Sarah Walton told the Tribunal that she had extended an invitation to Student A to attend the College for questioning. He declined. Rather than respecting that choice, she phoned him and questioned him remotely , even though he did not want to be interviewed. This ra...

The Employment Tribunal between a dismissed Bury College teacher and the College concluded in early May 2025. Now, almost six weeks later, the parties are still waiting for a decision. While delays can be frustrating, they are not unusual, especially in complex cases. Here’s why this particular judgment may be taking longer than expected: 1. High Volume of Disputed Evidence This case involves a large number of contested facts , including the interpretation of meeting notes, discrepancies in witness testimony, and disputes over College policy. The judge must carefully assess each of these elements before reaching a conclusion, not just on the facts, but also on how fairly the process was followed. 2. Multiple Legal Issues in Play The case touches on several areas of employment law: Procedural fairness in dismissal Substantive grounds for gross misconduct Proper use of safeguarding procedures under KCSIE 2023 Allegations of unequal treatment and bias The handling (o...

The Bury College Employment Tribunal was meant to be a forum for assessing fairness, evidence, and process. But on several occasions, the behaviour of the College’s witnesses raised serious concerns about professionalism, impartiality, and how the case was defended. During cross-examination, both Sarah Walton,  the investigator, and Charlie Deane,  the appeal officer, displayed striking levels of defensiveness. Their reactions were not only revealing in terms of tone and attitude, but also serious enough to prompt direct intervention from the judge. Sarah Walton: “How dare you ask that question” In one notable exchange, when the Claimant’s representative asked Sarah Walton an appropriate question about her investigation, she responded sharply with: “How dare you ask that question.” This outburst came not in response to an abusive or irrelevant line of questioning, but to a question well within the scope of fair tribunal inquiry. The judge immediately intervened, remindi...

As the three-day employment tribunal concerning Bury College comes to a close and the parties await judgment, one thing is clear: the College’s internal processes, decisions, and safeguarding practices have raised more questions than answers. The case centred on the dismissal of a teacher for allegedly using an offensive term in a classroom. The College argued it had no confidence the behaviour would not be repeated, and relied heavily on safeguarding policies, the Code of Conduct, and claims of reputational risk. But over the course of the hearing, that argument began to fray. Most notably, Sarah Walton , the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, admitted under cross-examination that she had repeated the same slur to the same student, while knowing it could cause harm. Yet she was never investigated, warned, or even spoken to about the incident. The teacher, by contrast, was dismissed. The College also shifted key positions during the Tribunal, most significantly, claiming f...

During the Bury College Employment Tribunal, the Respondent attempted to draw a direct line between the Claimant’s use of the word “retard” in a classroom exchange and the departure of Student A from college. The implication? That the teacher’s words had such an impact that Student A felt compelled to leave the institution altogether. But the evidence didn’t support it, and the Tribunal Judge made that clear. The Attempt to Link Departure to the Incident The incident in question occurred in early September 2023. Student A, after being prompted to reflect on his behaviour, replied to the teacher with “You’re a retard.” The teacher repeated the word back as a question, and the class moved on without any further disruption from the student. Later, Student A left college, not as a result of any complaint, but because he had secured employment. At tribunal, the Respondent sought to imply that the Claimant’s conduct contributed to Student A’s departure, a line of reasoning that, if accep...

At the recent Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, serious questions were raised about the fairness and diligence of the internal appeal process that upheld the dismissal of a long-serving teacher. Charlie Deane , who chaired the appeal hearing, made several key admissions under cross-examination,  each of which may significantly affect the Tribunal’s judgment on whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.   Key Revelations from the Appeal Chair: He Did Not Know the Investigation Notes Had Been Amended Mr. Deane admitted he was unaware that the original investigation notes had been challenged by the Claimant and formally amended due to inaccuracies. This lack of awareness raises concerns about whether he understood the contested nature of the evidence he was relying upon. None of the Notes Were Verified for Accuracy Despite the importance of these records in shaping the decision to dismiss, Mr. Deane admitted that no steps were taken to...

At the recent Employment Tribunal involving Bury College , an inconsistency in the College’s handling of concerns raised by Student B and her mother drew sharp attention. Two very different issues were raised about the Claimant: A misconduct allegation;  that the teacher had used the word "retard" toward a student. A mental health concern;  where Student B and her mother raised that he had memory loss. The College’s reaction to each was telling. The misconduct concern was treated as credible and serious . It triggered: A formal investigation. A referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). Immediate suspension of the teacher. A disciplinary hearing that ultimately led to dismissal. But the mental health concern  was dismissed outright . There was: No occupational health referral . No medical assessment . No documentation or inquiry . No exploration of whether any alleged memory issues were related to stress, medicatio...

At the 2025 Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, Deputy Principal Becky Tootell was asked about the Claimant's latest  performance review . That review, written by a College manager, praised the teacher as someone who was “very reflective and able to amend his practice when necessary.” This was directly relevant to the hearing. The College had justified the teacher’s dismissal, in part, by arguing that he posed a future risk and could not be trusted to change his behaviour . The performance review, however, contradicted that position . Under cross-examination, Tootell dismissed the review, saying “That’s just one manager’s opinion.” But that manager wasn’t a bystander, they were the person officially tasked with evaluating the Claimant’s performance. Performance reviews are a formal process. Their purpose is to: Provide structured feedback . Identify strengths and areas for improvement . Support development and goal setting. Help managers and HR make infor...