04 - Ignored Resolution: College Skipped Safeguarding Step After Case Was Closed by Line Manager

A major procedural failure has emerged from the recent Bury College employment tribunal: the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, failed to verify whether the concern that led to a teacher’s dismissal had already been resolved, despite being advised to talk to the manager concerned.

Following a classroom incident in early September 2023, the issue was referred to Shehla Ijaz, Assistant Curriculum Manager for GCSE Maths and the day-to-day line manager of the teacher concerned. After speaking to both the teacher and Student B, who raised the concern, Shehla resolved the issue informally, a resolution accepted by Student B and her mother, and closed the matter.

This approach aligned with Stage 1 of the College’s Complaints Policy, which allows an informal resolution without written documentation if both parties are satisfied with the outcome. That makes what happened next even more troubling.

When a formal complaint was submitted by Student B’s mother, offering no new facts but shifting the target of the allegation, the College escalated the issue and suspended the teacher. Crucially, HR adviser Alex Jardine recommended to Walton that she “talk to Shehla to find out what she did when the allegation was raised with her.” Walton chose not to.

At Tribunal, Walton was asked:

“Do you accept that, if you had spoken to Shehla, you would have found that the concern had already been resolved to the satisfaction of Student B and her mother?”

She answered: “No” despite Shehla's statement stating otherwise.

Even more concerning is that the College never questioned Shehla’s authority at the time, not during the original incident, not during the disciplinary process, and not at appeal. But at Tribunal, they suddenly argued that Shehla had no authority to resolve the concern. This retrospective challenge, raised only when convenient, appears to be an attempt to justify why Shehla was ignored.

Shehla wasn’t “just another member of staff”, she was the teacher’s direct manager and the person staff reported to daily, and the one to whom Student B was referred to. There was no policy or record indicating she lacked authority to act on concerns within her department.

In fact, the lack of formal documentation, permitted under Stage 1 of the Complaints Policy, made speaking to Shehla even more important. If no written record exists, the only way to confirm what happened is to speak directly to the person who handled it. That didn’t happen.

This failure contributed directly to the College’s decision to disregard the prior resolution, proceed with suspension, and ultimately dismiss the teacher; all without confirming whether the issue had already been appropriately addressed.

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

41 - Safeguarding, Accountability, and Leadership at Bury College: Serious Questions Raised by Tribunal Evidence

In the Further Education sector, safeguarding is not simply a policy requirement, it is a core duty. Colleges are entrusted with the welfare of young people, and those in leadership positions carry a heightened responsibility to model and enforce those standards. Recent tribunal evidence involving Bury College raises significant questions about how safeguarding responsibilities are interpreted and applied at a senior level within the institution.   A Case That Goes Beyond One Incident At the centre of the case is a striking inconsistency. A lecturer was dismissed for using a derogatory term toward a student. However, tribunal evidence confirmed that a senior safeguarding leader,  Sarah Walton , Assistant Principal for Personal Development and the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) at the time, also used the same term toward the same student. Critically, it was acknowledged that: she had assessed that using the word could cause harm , yet chose ...
Read more