07a1 - Bury College Ignored Its Own Policy After Failing to Substantiate Allegation

During the 2025 Employment Tribunal between Bury College and a dismissed teacher, serious questions were raised about the College’s failure to follow its own Managing Allegations Against Staff Policy, despite senior staff claiming that the policy was central to their investigation.

In her written statement to the Tribunal, Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), stated that her investigation was carried out “exclusively with reference” to this policy. The policy outlines clear post-investigation procedures depending on whether an allegation is substantiated, unsubstantiated, unfounded, false, or malicious.

According to the policy, if an allegation is unsubstantiated, meaning there is insufficient evidence to prove it or disprove, the individual involved “will be supported to return to work.” The same support is required where allegations are deemed unfounded, false, or malicious.

Yet, despite Sarah Walton’s investigation failing to establish that the teacher had called a student with a disability a derogatory name, and instead finding only that he had repeated a word said to him, she failed to follow this guidance. Instead of recommending a return to work with support, Walton recommended disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, an option the policy reserves only for substantiated allegations.

The inconsistency became even more significant under cross-examination at Tribunal. Walton admitted that both Student B and her mother could have had ulterior motives for making the complaint, raising the possibility that the allegation fell into the category of false, unfounded, or even malicious. Yet again, no support was provided to the teacher, and no steps were taken to address the motive behind the complaint.

This apparent disregard for the policy’s own tiered response framework undercuts the legitimacy of the College’s handling of the case. If the accusation wasn’t proven, and there was suspicion around its origin, why was the recommended outcome dismissal rather than support?

The policy exists precisely to prevent unjust outcomes in cases where evidence is lacking or motives are questionable. The failure to apply it in this case raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and compliance with safeguarding best practice.

In a disciplinary process where fairness, impartiality, and procedural adherence are paramount, choosing to act as though an allegation is substantiated, when it was not, undermines the foundation of the decision-making process.

The Tribunal will need to consider whether this failure to follow internal policy contributed to an unfair dismissal, and whether it reflects a broader issue of confirmation bias and predetermined outcomes. 

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