21 - Bury College Tribunal: Use of Unverified Notes Raises Serious Fairness Concerns

One of the most striking revelations to emerge during the recent Employment Tribunal involving Bury College was the College’s continued reliance on meeting notes known to be inaccurate, even after acknowledging their flaws.

The teacher, who was dismissed following an allegation that he had called a student a “retard”, challenged the accuracy of the investigation notes during the disciplinary process. Some of his requested amendments were accepted by the College, effectively confirming that the original notes were at least partially inaccurate.

Despite this, the College made no attempt to verify the accuracy of the remaining content, or of any subsequent notes produced by the same note-taker, Alex Jardine, who attended and recorded all the relevant meetings.

No explanation was ever provided as to why some amendments were accepted and others rejected. Furthermore, the College did not check the accuracy of future notes even after it became aware that mistakes had previously been made.

Yet at Tribunal, the Respondent’s solicitor quoted directly from these same notes to justify the teacher’s dismissal, presenting them as reliable evidence despite knowing they had never been formally verified. These notes were used to support serious claims, including the teacher’s alleged lack of remorse and failure to accept accountability.

This practice raises profound questions of fairness and transparency. Once it has been demonstrated that a note-taker has recorded inaccurate information, and some of those errors are corrected, continued reliance on their notes without further verification casts doubt on the legitimacy of the entire evidence base.

In any disciplinary process, the burden falls on the employer to ensure that its evidence is accurate, complete, and fairly gathered. That burden is even heavier when the evidence is used to justify dismissal. The Tribunal was told by Becky Tootell, the Deputy Principal, that the teacher himself was responsible for flagging any further inaccuracies, but legal experts argue that once doubt is cast over the reliability of official records, the employer has a duty to re-establish trust in the process.

Failing to do so, and then relying on those same unverified records as evidence in a Tribunal, could be interpreted as procedural unfairness, especially when careers and reputations are on the line.

In a case already raising serious questions about confirmation bias and retrospective justification, the College’s handling, and use, of disputed records may become a focal point in the Judge’s decision.

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