23 - Selective Credibility? How Bury College Handled Allegations from the Same Source in Two Very Different Ways

At the recent Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, an inconsistency in the College’s handling of concerns raised by Student B and her mother drew sharp attention.

Two very different issues were raised about the Claimant:

  1. A misconduct allegation; that the teacher had used the word "retard" toward a student.

  2. A mental health concern; where Student B and her mother raised that he had memory loss.

The College’s reaction to each was telling.

The misconduct concern was treated as credible and serious. It triggered:

  • A formal investigation.

  • A referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

  • Immediate suspension of the teacher.

  • A disciplinary hearing that ultimately led to dismissal.

But the mental health concern was dismissed outright.

There was:

  • No occupational health referral.

  • No medical assessment.

  • No documentation or inquiry.

  • No exploration of whether any alleged memory issues were related to stress, medication, or health.

The Double Standard

This selective approach creates the appearance of bias. When Student B and her mother made a claim harmful to the Claimant’s position, it was acted on swiftly. But when they made a claim that could have explained the Claimant’s conduct, or prompted supportive intervention, it was ignored.

Both claims came from the same source, yet the College treated one as credible and the other as baseless, without any proper inquiry.

This raises serious procedural questions:

  • If the College believed the student and parent about the word being used, why not believe them about the potential welfare concern?

  • Shouldn’t both concerns have been properly investigated, either to protect students or to support staff?

What It Could Mean for the Tribunal

The judge must decide if the College followed a fair process. The uneven handling of concerns from the same source may suggest confirmation bias: the College acted on what aligned with their assumptions and ignored what didn’t.

In a disciplinary process, especially one involving gross misconduct and safeguarding, this imbalance can be deeply problematic. A fair investigation requires that all relevant concerns, not just the ones convenient for dismissal, are taken seriously.

By accepting the negative allegation and discarding the potentially exculpatory one, the College may have undermined the fairness and objectivity of the entire process.

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