18 - Trust the Notes? Disputed Records Used to Justify Dismissal at Bury College

At the heart of Bury College’s decision to dismiss a teacher for alleged gross misconduct were a set of meeting notes that even the College acknowledges were disputed, partially inaccurate, and never properly clarified.

The notes, taken during key meetings, were compiled by a single note-taker, a member of HR who was present throughout the process. The teacher, who was later dismissed, submitted corrections and amendments to the investigation notes after receiving them. Some of those changes were accepted; others were not. No explanation was ever given as to why certain corrections were rejected.

Despite this, the College went on to rely on the amended notes, despite them being in dispute, during the disciplinary and appeal stages, and again during the tribunal.

Under cross-examination, Becky Tootell, the College’s Deputy Principal and disciplinary officer, admitted that she did not verify the disputed notes with either the note-taker or the investigator before relying on them. Instead, she said it was the Claimant’s responsibility to point out any further errors.

The Claimant’s representative says that the burden to ensure the accuracy of official records lies squarely with the employer, not the employee.

“Just because some errors were pointed out and corrected doesn’t mean all errors were caught,” they said. “A failure to investigate or clarify key evidence makes the process fundamentally unreliable.”

Even more troubling, the same note-taker was responsible for notes at multiple stages of the disciplinary process, yet there is no indication that any of her later notes were verified either. Nevertheless, those notes were repeatedly cited as fact by the College throughout the proceedings.

This lack of scrutiny leads to a key concern: can a dismissal be fair if it rests on disputed documents that were never properly verified?

Legal observers say no. Under both ACAS guidance and general principles of employment law, employers must take reasonable steps to confirm the reliability of the evidence they use to dismiss staff. Using disputed notes without follow-up fails that test.

The issue feeds into a wider concern about institutional bias, that the College may have operated from a position of confirmation rather than investigation, relying on what supported their position rather than objectively examining the facts.

With no transparent record of how the evidence was reviewed, and no attempt to resolve disputed facts, the College’s process risks being viewed not as an investigation, but as an execution of a pre-decided outcome.

The Tribunal’s decision is pending, but for many, the damage to procedural credibility is already done.

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