19 - College Failed to Provide Proof of Investigator Training Despite Early Warning in Tribunal Claim

At the recent employment tribunal involving Bury College, serious questions were raised about the qualifications of the staff member who conducted the investigation that led to a teacher’s dismissal. Despite being made aware over a year earlier that the teacher’s legal claim questioned whether the investigation was conducted by someone adequately trained, the College failed to produce any evidence of such training.

In his ET1 claim form submitted in March 2023, the teacher stated:

“In order for an investigation to be fair, the person conducting the investigation ought to be adequately trained in how to conduct the process; lack of such training puts the person under investigation at a disadvantage because the person conducting the investigation could fail to properly investigate, could overlook important facts, or could make inappropriate recommendations.”

He went on to allege that:

“The actions of the investigator in this instance indicate that she was likely not trained, or not adequately trained, in how to conduct an investigation.”

This was a clear and early indication to the College that the investigator’s qualifications would be scrutinised at Tribunal.

The College had months to gather and disclose any relevant training records to demonstrate that Sarah Walton, the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and investigator in the case, had been properly trained to lead formal investigations. They did not.

When cross-examined at the Tribunal, Walton was asked:

“Can you point to any evidence in the bundle that shows you were trained to conduct formal investigations?”

She could not. Instead, she gave a lengthy explanation about her experience but was unable to reference any training records, qualifications, CPD certificates, or policy documents confirming her formal preparation for the role she undertook.

Adding to the concern, Walton stated in her witness statement that she had contacted the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for “advice on a situation I have never experienced.” This raised further doubts as to her readiness to manage such a serious investigation independently.

The consequences of this are serious. The Tribunal heard that Walton made the LADO referral before receiving formal meeting notes and relied on memory and her own undisclosed notes. She later admitted that she did not correct inaccurate information she had passed to the LADO, even after receiving the correct records, a failure which may have influenced how the case progressed.

When the College was made aware, in writing, that the investigator’s training would be a contested issue, it had a duty to produce any evidence that supported her competence. Its failure to do so not only raises procedural concerns but could be seen as a breach of the obligation to disclose all relevant material.

This omission further undermines the integrity of the disciplinary process and adds weight to the argument that the teacher was dismissed following an investigation that was neither impartial nor professionally robust.