07 - Who Complains Matters More Than What’s Complained About: Parent Power at Bury College Tribunal

During the May 2025 Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, a key theme emerged: the College’s decision to escalate a complaint appeared to hinge less on what was said and more on who complained.

Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, acknowledged under cross-examination that in 2022, a staff member raised concerns about comments made during a training session. These comments allegedly upset a number of staff, but no formal disciplinary investigation was launched. Danny Rushton, who was involved at the time, admitted he didn’t even know what the comments were. Sarah accepted that as the comments were unknown, they could have included the word “retard.”

Fast forward to 2023, and the College faced a new complaint, this time from a student. Student B told a receptionist that the teacher had called the entire class “retards.” She was passed to Shehla Ijaz, a senior manager in the Maths department, where the story changed: Student B now said the word was directed at her.

Shehla investigated and resolved the matter informally, with both Student B and her mother reportedly satisfied. The College’s formal disciplinary process remained dormant.

Then came a parental complaint. This time, Student B’s mother wrote in to allege that the comment had been directed at a different student altogether. Despite there being no new evidence, the College immediately escalated the issue to a safeguarding referral and suspended the teacher. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) later ruled that the concern did not meet the threshold of harm, but by then, the wheels of a gross misconduct investigation were turning.

Later still, Students B and C claimed the word had been directed at two students, but no effort was made to identify the second student.

The pattern raised serious concerns at Tribunal. If the College took no formal action when the issue came from a staff member, or from students, and only reacted strongly when a parent got involved, that suggests the disciplinary process was driven not by the severity or substance of the concern, but by the status of the complainant.

This creates the impression that the College didn’t escalate because of what was said, or because of any new evidence, but because of who was raising the complaint.

Why This Matters

If disciplinary processes are not consistently applied, and are instead triggered based on external pressure or parental involvement, that raises serious fairness and procedural concerns. The Tribunal judge must consider whether the teacher’s dismissal was the result of a measured response to evidence, or a reactionary move driven by who was making noise, not by what actually happened.

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