06 - Bury College’s Suspension Process Breached Its Own Policy — and No One Explained Why

Bury College’s decision to suspend a staff member without reviewing that suspension, as required by its own policy, was a key procedural failing.

The suspended teacher, who was later dismissed for alleged gross misconduct, was left on suspension for 27 days. But the College’s own disciplinary policy mandates that all suspensions must be reviewed within 19 days, with a written explanation for any extension provided within five working days of that review.

No such review took place. No explanation was ever issued.

Despite this breach, the suspension became the first formal step in what ultimately became a full-scale disciplinary process. And while the College claimed it followed procedure at every stage, there is no evidence that it complied with this most basic safeguard built into its own system.

More importantly, no one from the College explained why the suspension was allowed to continue unreviewed. And crucially, no one involved in the suspension decision was present at the tribunal to be questioned.

The suspension decision was reportedly made by two senior figures: Tracy Pullein and Danny Rushton. Neither provided a witness statement. Neither appeared at tribunal. Their absence left a gap that couldn’t be filled, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

The College’s position was that suspension was “necessary” in order to minimise any risk to students, offence being taken, reputational damage, and to protect the integrity of the workplace investigation. But without a documented rationale or review, this claim is difficult to assess.

In contrast, ACAS guidelines, which inform best practice in disciplinary procedures, stress that suspension should be a last resort, not a default reaction. It should only be used when there is a genuine risk to students, staff, or the integrity of an investigation, and must be reviewed regularly to ensure it remains justified.

The Claimant’s team say that the lack of review and written justification rendered the suspension procedurally unlawful, or at the very least, fundamentally unfair. If alternatives to suspension were never explored, and no review ever took place, then the College not only breached its own policy, it denied the Claimant a fair and balanced process from the outset.

Critics say the failure to revisit the suspension decision speaks to a broader issue of governance. “Policy only matters if it’s followed,” one legal observer noted. “If a college can ignore its own procedures without consequence, then no employee is truly protected.”

As the Tribunal prepares to deliver its judgment, this unexamined suspension may yet become one of the central flaws that determines the fairness, or unfairness, of the dismissal.

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