07b - Bury College Ignored Key ACAS Safeguards in Investigation of Teacher

During the 2025 Employment Tribunal between Bury College and a dismissed teacher, it emerged that a core principle of fair investigation, as set out by ACAS Guidance, was not followed.

The incident in question, in which the teacher repeated back the word “retard” to a student who had said it first, took place in a classroom with approximately 20 students present. According to ACAS Guidance, when “a large number of people witnessed the same incident, the person investigating should talk to some of the witnesses.” The purpose of this safeguard is to gather a balanced, reliable picture from multiple perspectives.

Yet Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and the person who conducted the investigation, made no attempt to speak to any other students in the class.

During cross-examination, Walton accepted that independent witnesses could have provided crucial evidence that either supported or challenged the complaint made against the teacher. However, she further admitted that she deliberately chose not to speak to any of them, citing child protection concerns as her reason.

This explanation raises important concerns. No formal safeguarding assessment or documented risk appears to have been made to support the decision not to interview the students. There were no safeguarding alerts or referrals indicating that questioning the students would have placed them at risk. The College had also not sought consent from parents or explored less intrusive ways to gather statements.

Moreover, Walton was not investigating allegations of physical abuse or sexually inappropriate conduct, but a single instance of repeated language. In such circumstances, failing to seek corroboration from other students, while relying heavily on contradictory statements from just one, undermines both the thoroughness and neutrality of the investigation.

This failure was not trivial. Had even a handful of impartial witnesses been interviewed, the investigator could have clarified:

  • Whether the teacher directed the word at any student,

  • Whether Student B’s account aligned with the experience of others.

Instead, a dismissal was pursued on the back of untested, shifting accounts without speaking to any of the many students present who might have provided clarification.

By disregarding basic ACAS principles, the College weakened its own investigation and opened itself to accusations of confirmation bias and procedural unfairness.

If Bury College’s investigator had followed the guidance properly, the outcome may have been very different, and a long-serving teacher may never have faced dismissal for a moment that was never properly reviewed by those who were actually there.

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