22 - When Reviews Are Ignored: The Bury College Tribunal and the Question of Employee Performance

At the 2025 Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, Deputy Principal Becky Tootell was asked about the Claimant's latest performance review. That review, written by a College manager, praised the teacher as someone who was “very reflective and able to amend his practice when necessary.”

This was directly relevant to the hearing. The College had justified the teacher’s dismissal, in part, by arguing that he posed a future risk and could not be trusted to change his behaviour. The performance review, however, contradicted that position.

Under cross-examination, Tootell dismissed the review, saying “That’s just one manager’s opinion.”

But that manager wasn’t a bystander, they were the person officially tasked with evaluating the Claimant’s performance. Performance reviews are a formal process. Their purpose is to:

  • Provide structured feedback.

  • Identify strengths and areas for improvement.

  • Support development and goal setting.

  • Help managers and HR make informed decisions.

In short, reviews are not just casual opinions, they are part of an employee’s official record. When done properly, they are intended to guide decisions about future responsibilities, support needs, or progression. And in situations involving misconduct, they help assess whether an employee is likely to learn from mistakes or needs additional support.

To dismiss a positive review as irrelevant, simply because it contradicts the College’s justification for dismissal, raises a critical question:

What’s the point of conducting a performance review if the employer can disregard its findings when they no longer suit the narrative?

This approach suggests a selective use of evidence. The College leaned heavily on subjective impressions, like the Claimant being “defensive” or “litigious,” but gave no weight to documented feedback from a senior colleague who had assessed the teacher’s actual conduct and responsiveness to correction.

Why It Matters to the Tribunal

Tribunal judges are tasked with deciding whether a dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. That includes weighing the credibility of evidence and whether the employer acted consistently and reasonably. If the College relies on documentation only when it supports their case, but ignores it when it doesn’t, that’s not a fair or balanced process.

A signed performance review stating that the teacher is reflective and capable of amending his practice should carry weight, especially when the reason given for dismissal is that the teacher could not be trusted to improve his behaviour.

In a case that hinges on whether the teacher posed a future risk, the College’s decision to ignore its own formal performance assessment may be significant.

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