24 - Appeal Chair Admits To Just Skimming Notes Before Upholding Dismissal at Bury College Tribunal

At the recent Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, serious questions were raised about the fairness and diligence of the internal appeal process that upheld the dismissal of a long-serving teacher.

Charlie Deane, who chaired the appeal hearing, made several key admissions under cross-examination, each of which may significantly affect the Tribunal’s judgment on whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.

 

Key Revelations from the Appeal Chair:

  1. He Did Not Know the Investigation Notes Had Been Amended

Mr. Deane admitted he was unaware that the original investigation notes had been challenged by the Claimant and formally amended due to inaccuracies. This lack of awareness raises concerns about whether he understood the contested nature of the evidence he was relying upon.

  1. None of the Notes Were Verified for Accuracy

Despite the importance of these records in shaping the decision to dismiss, Mr. Deane admitted that no steps were taken to verify their accuracy before relying on them. He stated that “I trust my staff,” including the original investigator and note-taker.

This approach bypassed fundamental principles of procedural fairness, particularly when it was already known that the notes had previously contained errors.

  1. He Only “Skimmed” the Notes

Most significantly, Mr. Deane admitted under oath that he had only “skimmed” over the investigation notes before deciding to uphold the dismissal. For a decision as serious as ending someone’s career, this admission may raise red flags about due diligence and reasonable consideration of evidence.

 

Why This Matters

The role of an appeal chair is not a rubber stamp. It exists to re-examine the fairness of the disciplinary process and test whether the original decision was sound. To do that properly, the appeal officer must engage with the full context and detail of the evidence, not rely on trust, assumption, or superficial review.

In this case, the teacher had no previous misconduct, had apologised multiple times, and had worked without issue following the original manager’s resolution of the concern. Given that, the appeal decision was a crucial opportunity to prevent a potentially unfair dismissal. Instead, it appears to have reaffirmed the dismissal based on incomplete engagement with the facts.


Implications for the Tribunal

The Tribunal judge must now consider whether this approach, skim-reading unverified, partially amended notes, constitutes a fair and reasonable appeal process. The appeal decision plays a central role in determining procedural fairness. If that process was flawed, the entire dismissal may be legally unsound.

As the Claimant’s representative told us, decisions should be grounded in verified facts, not trust or impressions. When someone’s career is at stake, the duty of care from senior decision-makers must be more than superficial.

 

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