30 - The Investigator Under Scrutiny: A Closer Look at Sarah Walton’s Role in the Bury College Tribunal

As the Employment Tribunal deliberates on the high-profile Bury College dismissal case, growing attention is being paid to the conduct of Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and the investigator tasked with handling the allegation against the Claimant. Tribunal evidence reveals a concerning catalogue of procedural failings, omissions, and double standards that raise fundamental questions about her fitness for the role and the fairness of the process she led.

Double Standards in Language Use

Central to the case was the teacher’s use of the word “retard”, repeated back to a student who had said it first. Yet, Sarah Walton herself admitted to using the same word to the same student and acknowledged she knew it could be damaging. Despite this, she was not reprimanded, investigated, or even criticised, a stark contrast to the treatment of the Claimant, who was dismissed. The College's selective enforcement of standards calls its impartiality into question.

Public Disclosure of a Student’s Disability

In a public tribunal hearing, Sarah Walton disclosed the specific nature of Student A’s learning disability, despite the College withholding this detail at all earlier stages. While the judge had asked the question, Walton made no effort to provide the answer privately, as she could have done. As a DSL entrusted with safeguarding responsibilities, publicly disclosing such sensitive information represents a troubling breach of privacy and may contravene data protection laws.

Refusal to Speak to the Key Witness

Despite being advised by HR to consult Shehla Ijaz, the teacher’s line manager who had resolved the matter informally, Sarah refused to do so. When asked at tribunal whether speaking to Shehla would have revealed that the matter had already been resolved to the satisfaction of Student B and her mother, she simply said, “No.” Her refusal to consult a central witness in the case severely undermines the credibility of her investigation.

Use of Inaccurate and Unverified Notes

The Claimant challenged the accuracy of the investigation notes, and the College accepted some of his amendments, effectively admitting they were flawed. Yet, Sarah relied on them and failed to verify their accuracy or seek confirmation. Worse still, the College’s legal team later used those same unverified notes to justify the dismissal. This disregard for factual reliability raises serious doubts about the integrity of the process.

Undisclosed Personal Notes

Sarah claimed at tribunal that she used her own handwritten notes to complete her LADO referral, yet those notes were never disclosed to the Claimant or the Tribunal. This is a breach of fair disclosure principles and deprives the Claimant of the opportunity to challenge potentially decisive evidence.

Delayed LADO Referral Without Justification

The College is required to refer allegations to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) within one working day. In this instance the College waited 11 days and Sarah could offer no explanation for the delay. This delay was a breach of safeguarding protocol.

Interviewing a Vulnerable Former Student by Phone

Student A had left the College by the time of the investigation. Sarah called him directly, despite him declining to return for a face-to-face meeting. She questioned him alone, without an adult or safeguarding professional present, without any independent record, and without ensuring immediate support if he had reacted badly. The ethical and safeguarding concerns here are significant. The reliability of any account obtained under such conditions is, at best, questionable.

Ignoring Independent Witnesses

Around 20 students were present during the classroom incident. ACAS guidance clearly recommends interviewing multiple witnesses in such cases. Yet Sarah interviewed none. She cited child protection as the reason, despite the availability of formal safeguarding protocols that could have allowed for appropriate interviews. This omission deprived the investigation of vital corroborative or contradictory evidence.

No Evidence of Training

The Claimant raised, in his initial ET1 form, concerns about whether Sarah Walton had been adequately trained to conduct a formal investigation. The College had months to present evidence of such training. At tribunal, Sarah could not point to a single piece of documentation confirming she was formally trained. Instead, she gave a general speech about her experience. The absence of documented training seriously undermines the legitimacy of the investigative process she led.

Failure to Follow the Policy She Claimed to Use

Sarah stated that her investigation followed the College’s ‘Managing Allegations Against Staff’ policy. That policy states that if an allegation is unsubstantiated, unfounded, false, or malicious, the employee must be supported to return to work. Sarah’s own findings did not substantiate the allegation and she acknowledged the possibility of ulterior motives by the complainants; yet she did not support the Claimant’s return. Instead, she escalated to formal disciplinary action, ignoring the very policy she claimed to be following.

Unequal Application of the Equality Policy

The College’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy says that all forms of discrimination are a serious disciplinary offence. Student B made discriminatory comments about the Claimant's age and a percieved disability. Yet she was merely "spoken to," with no formal action taken. The College’s approach enforcing policy when it supports dismissal, and disregarding it when it might support the employee, exemplifies institutional bias.

What It All Means for the Tribunal Judge

Each of these breaches, from unverified evidence to privacy violations, contributes to a wider pattern of procedural unfairness, selective enforcement, and safeguarding failures. Sarah Walton’s role in this case will likely be pivotal to the Tribunal’s final judgment.

If the Judge determines that the investigation lacked credibility, fairness, and impartiality, then the foundation of the entire disciplinary process crumbles. A flawed investigation not only taints the findings of the disciplinary panel but also renders the decision to dismiss unsafe. It may well be this accumulation of serious procedural concerns, led by the College’s own safeguarding lead, that is causing the judge to take longer than expected to reach a final decision.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: Sarah Walton’s actions must prompt serious reflection within Bury College about how its safeguarding duties are interpreted and how justice is delivered in internal employment matters.

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