15 - Lack of Transparency: Bury College’s Appeal Hearing Raises Fairness Concerns

In the ongoing fallout from Bury College’s employment tribunal, fresh scrutiny has emerged over the transparency and fairness of the College’s appeal process, particularly regarding who was present at the hearing and what notice was given to the dismissed teacher.

At the core of the issue is the College’s own Disciplinary Policy and Procedures (October 2022), which states:

“Documentation to be used and names of any witnesses who will be asked to attend the interview or hearing will be exchanged between the parties at least 5 working days before the event.”

This was raised at Tribunal in relation to Becky Tootell attending the appeal haearing without the teacher being notified. Becky Tootell herself explained that the policy was in ralation to the disciplinary hearing; implying that it was not in relation to appeal hearings.

While this clause is located within the disciplinary section of the policy, the teacher’s representative argues that this provision should reasonably apply to appeal hearings as well. After all, an appeal is a continuation of the disciplinary process, not a fresh start, and can result in the same outcome: dismissal.

This expectation of fairness is reinforced by ACAS guidance, which advises employers to ensure that both disciplinary and appeal stages are conducted fairly, with reasonable notice and full transparency regarding evidence and attendance.

However, in this case, the teacher was not told that Deputy Principal Becky Tootell, who chaired the disciplinary hearing and made the decision to dismiss, would be present at the appeal. The teacher said he only became aware of her attendance when she appeared at the appeal meeting itself. This lack of notice led him to feel ambushed and unprepared.

College representatives claimed that Becky was only present to “summarise” the disciplinary process. But during the appeal, she went beyond summarising by asking questions, challenging the teacher’s points, and actively participating in the appeal discussion. Her presence, without prior notice, arguably compromised the appeal’s impartiality.

Under natural justice principles, an employee should have a fair opportunity to prepare for and respond to the case against them, including knowing who will be present at critical meetings. The fact that the disciplinary policy required the exchange of documents and names of attendees five days in advance for the disciplinary hearing sets a standard. Applying this standard to one part of the process and ignoring it during the appeal undermines the fairness of the entire disciplinary procedure.

This procedural inconsistency forms part of a broader picture that emerged at Tribunal: a process shaped by subjective judgment, withheld evidence, and shifting justifications. Whether or not the Tribunal ultimately rules in the teacher’s favour, the College’s failure to provide basic transparency during the appeal process raises serious concerns about how internal procedures were conducted and whether due process was truly followed.

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