17 - Missing Note, Mixed Messages: How a Suppressed Document May Undermine Bury College’s Disciplinary Process

At the centre of the recent employment tribunal involving Bury College lies a document the College claims was “irrelevant”, but which may prove crucial in determining whether the disciplinary process was fair.

The document in question is a note summarising a telephone call between a student and Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL). The note was created by Walton and contains details that were not shared with the teacher being investigated, until after his appeal hearing had concluded.

Despite the College’s attempts to dismiss the document as inconsequential, this note revealed something highly significant: Sarah Walton admitted to using the same word “retard” to the same student.

Yet the teacher was dismissed, and Walton was not even investigated.

Conflicting Accounts

In her witness statement to the Tribunal, Deputy Principal Becky Tootell claimed:

“An email was given to the Claimant concerning a note from Student A, during the disciplinary which had been mistakenly missed from the pack of documents given in advance of the meeting. We apologised for this error.”

However, the notes of the disciplinary hearing contain no mention of this apology or the document being provided.

Meanwhile, Charlie Deane, who conducted the appeal hearing, contradicted Becky’s version of events. In his witness statement, he wrote:

“One of which is the ‘Note from Student A’ was not provided in advance. This was merely a note from a telephone conversation which provided no relevance to the issues on appeal. In any event, we supplied a copy of this to [the teacher] following the meeting.”

So who is correct — Becky, who said it was provided and apologised for during the disciplinary, or Charlie, who said it was only provided after the appeal?

This contradiction could raise serious procedural questions. If the document was disclosed only after the appeal, it means the teacher was dismissed without access to exculpatory evidence, a fundamental failure of due process.

Downplaying a Critical Document

Both Becky and Charlie sought to minimise the document’s importance, calling it irrelevant. But it was this very note that uncovered Sarah Walton’s use of the word “retard” with the same student; something she later admitted at Tribunal. Unlike the teacher, Walton was never suspended, investigated, or sanctioned.

The College’s attempt to downplay the note while relying on it to defend their decisions could suggest selective disclosure and inconsistency in how policies were applied. A failure to disclose this document earlier may be seen by the judge as a procedural defect, especially as the teacher had no opportunity to question Walton about the note prior to dismissal.

What This Means for the Tribunal

Tribunals take procedural fairness seriously. If the judge concludes that relevant evidence was withheld, disclosed late, or misrepresented, especially when it contradicted the College’s case, that could undermine the fairness of the entire disciplinary process.

The issue here is not just the content of the note, but the College’s inconsistent explanations, the timing of disclosure, and the implication that a different standard was applied to senior staff.

Whether viewed as a paperwork error or a procedural failure, this “irrelevant” document may turn out to be anything but.

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