03 - When Line Managers Don’t Count — Until Tribunal Day

During the recent employment tribunal involving Bury College, one issue repeatedly surfaced: Who had the authority to resolve the original complaint against the dismissed teacher?

The answer seemed clear, until the College changed it.

On the day the allegation was first raised by a student, it was passed to Shehla Ijaz, Assistant Curriculum Manager for GCSE Maths, who was responsible for day-to-day operations within the department. She interviewed the student, spoke to the teacher, and resolved the matter informally the same day. Shehla was the person the teacher and the rest of the department reported to daily.

For over a year, that resolution went unchallenged. It was not questioned during the formal investigation, at the disciplinary hearing, or in the appeal. No one suggested Shehla had acted outside her authority.

That changed at tribunal.

There, for the first time, the Respondent argued that Shehla was not the teacher’s line manager and had no authority to investigate or resolve the concern. According to the College, only more senior managers could act in that capacity; a claim not supported by the College’s own Complaints Policy, which explicitly states that “other staff members may also be able to help you with your complaint at this stage.”

The Claimant’s representative says that this retrospective challenge to Shehla’s authority was procedurally unfair, especially because it was raised for the first time at Tribunal. Had the issue been flagged earlier, the Claimant could have responded or presented evidence of Shehla’s actual responsibilities.

Adding weight to the Claimant’s position was an internal HR email, disclosed during proceedings, in which an HR officer wrote: “I do think, or even suggest we talk to Shehla to find out what she did when the allegation was raised with her.” No one in that email chain raised concerns about her authority at the time.

Observers have pointed out that this sudden pivot not only casts doubt on the College’s consistency, but also raises concerns about procedural integrity. If the institution itself accepted Shehla’s handling of the case for over a year, how can it now claim it was invalid?

The issue goes to the heart of fairness. If staff cannot rely on their immediate managers to resolve concerns, or worse, are later punished for doing so, it undermines any sense of internal accountability or trust in workplace resolution mechanisms.

The Tribunal must now decide whether Shehla was acting with appropriate authority and whether the College’s attempt to discredit her role, only at the eleventh hour, was a deliberate move to justify a decision already made.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more