28a - A Suspension Without Accountability: Key Decision-Makers Absent from Tribunal

In the high-profile tribunal involving Bury College, a significant procedural gap has emerged, one that goes to the heart of fairness and accountability.

The individuals responsible for the decision to suspend the claimant, Danny Rushton (Director of Human Resources) and Tracy Pullein (Vice Principal), did not provide witness statements and did not attend the tribunal to give evidence.

As a result, the claimant was unable to question those who made one of the most consequential decisions in the entire process.

This absence leaves a series of fundamental questions unanswered.

 

What Did Decision-Makers Believe Had Happened?

The decision to suspend appears to treat the teacher’s repetition of a word, originally used by a student, as equivalent to directing a derogatory term at a student.

Yet without evidence from the decision-makers themselves, it remains unclear:

  • What understanding of events informed their decision?
  • Why was contextual repetition interpreted as serious misconduct?

 

Was Suspension Necessary at All?

Suspension is intended to be a neutral act, used only where necessary to:

  • protect students, or
  • preserve the integrity of an investigation

However, the evidence indicates that the investigation after suspension consisted solely of a follow-up meeting with the claimant.

This raises a straightforward question:

If the investigation only involved a follow-up meeting with the teacher, why was suspension necessary?

Had Any Safeguarding Risk Already Passed?

At the point of suspension:

  • Student A had already left the College, having secured employment
  • Student B had been moved to a different class

These steps had already reduced, if not removed, any immediate safeguarding concern.

In that context, the rationale for suspension becomes increasingly difficult to identify.

 

Delay Undermines Urgency

The claimant continued teaching for over a week after the initial complaint.

If suspension was necessary to address an urgent safeguarding risk, why was it not implemented immediately?

The delay raises the possibility that suspension was not a protective measure, but a procedural step taken after the fact.

 

Behaviour Had Already Been Addressed

Following the initial intervention by Shehla Ijaz, the claimant:

  • continued teaching
  • interacted with students without incident

This suggests the issue had already been dealt with early on, in line with KCSIE 2023 and its low-level concerns guidance..

If behaviour had improved and no further concerns arose, the justification for escalation to suspension becomes unclear.

 

Policy Requirements Not Followed

The College’s own disciplinary policy requires that:

  • suspensions be reviewed within 19 days, and
  • a written update be issued within 5 days of that review

The teacher was suspended for 27 days, yet there was mo formal review or written outcome within the required timeframe.

This raises concerns about adherence to the College’s own procedures.

 

No Evidence Alternatives Were Considered

Both internal policy and ACAS guidance make clear that suspension should be a last resort, and that alternatives, such as:

  • temporary redeployment
  • adjusted duties
  • class reassignment

should be considered first.

No such alternatives were explored.

 

A Failure of Transparency

The absence of evidence from the decision-makers themselves leaves these issues unresolved.

In a case already marked by:

  • inconsistent safeguarding standards
  • procedural irregularities
  • and delayed disclosures

the unexplained suspension adds a further layer of concern.

 

Conclusion

Suspension is one of the most serious interim measures an employer can take. It requires clear justification, proper oversight, and accountability from those who make the decision.

In this case, the lack of direct evidence from those decision-makers means that justification has not been tested.

And where key decisions cannot be explained, serious questions arise, not just about the decision itself, but about the integrity of the process as a whole.

 


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