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. The student who claimed to be offended by hearing the word, because she has a disabled sister, admitted that she herself, in the very same class, referred to the entire group as a slang term for “retard” with her friend. This behaviour undermines the seriousness of her claim; if the word was genuinely so offensive to her, why was she comfortable using similar language in front of her peers?

 

A Complaint Already Dealt With

The incident was passed on to Shehla Ijaz, the maths department Assistant Manager. She investigated promptly, interviewed those involved, and closed the matter, all within the scope of the College’s own ‘Stage 1’ complaints policy, to the satisfaction of Student B herself and, according to Student B, her mother was happy with the outcome.

The maths lecturer claimed Shehla Ijaz was his line manager; a point that was only first challenged by the College during the tribunal hearing itself, leaving the maths lecturer without any fair opportunity to establish Shehla’s role during the tribunal.

When Student B’s mother later lodged her own complaint, a new complaint that was separate from her daughter’s complaint, she omitted to mention that the issue had already been resolved. Instead of dealing with this new complaint under Stage 1, as College policy required, the College escalated it, wrongly, to a formal process.

 

An Investigation That Ignored the Actual Allegation

The College appointed Sarah Walton to conduct the investigation. She accepted at tribunal that she had a clear understanding of what it was she was investigating; which was the maths lecturer calling a disabled student a retard. Yet she failed to establish that one fact. Even at tribunal, all that was proven was that he repeated the word back as a question after Student A had said it first. The original allegation, that he called a disabled student a “retard”, was unsubstantiated; yet at tribunal, after accepting that the allegation had not been established, Sarah claimed it had been substantiated.

When asked about her training to conduct disciplinary investigations, Sarah gave the tribunal a lengthy speech about her experiences, yet she failed to disclose one piece of documentation to confirm she was in fact trained to conduct such investigations. Her training had been called into question at a very early stage, so it was also surprising that the College failed to disclose any documentation to confirm Sarah had the relevant training; they’d had many months to find training documentation if it existed.

This lack of training likely played a factor in how the College handled the complaint.

 

 The Role of the LADO and Low-Level Concerns Policy

The complaint was referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), whose independent role is to decide whether allegations meet the statutory harm threshold. The LADO found that the threshold in this case was not met.

Under Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE), this meant the College was required to handle the matter under its Low Level Concerns Policy, which provides for monitoring and proportionate management, not formal disciplinary escalation.

But instead of following that process, Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), disregarded the LADO’s finding. At tribunal she even claimed that it was “the College”, not the LADO, who decides if the harm threshold is met. This was flatly wrong, and undermines the statutory purpose of independent oversight.

Walton ignored the low-level concerns route entirely and escalated the case to formal disciplinary procedures.

By choosing to ignore the LADO outcome and escalate the case to formal disciplinary action, Walton bypassed both statutory guidance and the College’s own safeguarding procedures. This raises profound questions about her fitness to hold the role of DSL.

 

Overlooked Bias

At tribunal, the College admitted that Student B had made discriminatory remarks about the maths lecturer and that she had been “spoken to” about them. This acknowledgment further undermined the reliability of Student B's accusations, yet the College pressed ahead.

 

Breach of Privacy in Open Court

Equally alarming was Sarah Walton’s conduct during the tribunal hearing itself. In open court, before members of the public, she disclosed the specific nature of Student A’s disability. This was deeply personal information which she had no right to share publicly.

As Designated Safeguarding Lead, Walton had a duty not only to protect students from harm but also to uphold their privacy and dignity. Safeguarding is not just about physical or emotional protection; it also includes protecting sensitive information. Disclosing a student’s disability in a public hearing was a clear breach of that duty, raising fresh concerns about her judgment and her ability to properly carry out her safeguarding responsibilities.

The contradiction is stark: the College justified the dismissal of a member of staff on the grounds of protecting a vulnerable student, yet their own safeguarding lead undermined that same student’s privacy in full view of the public.

 

Contradictions in Safeguarding Practice

Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, admitted under cross-examination that she had repeated the same offensive word to the same student in a phone call, despite knowing it could cause harm.

Unlike the maths lecturer, who repeated the word in the moment without malicious intent, Walton did so in her professional safeguarding role, after assessing that it could cause harm. Yet she faced no disciplinary action.

Walton accepted at tribunal that, the fact she repeated the word during her investigation, did not protect the student from the harmful effects of the word, and that it could cause the same damage as the maths lecturer repeating the word to him.

The fact that the maths lecturer was dismissed for repeating a word, while Walton herself admitted to knowingly saying the same word to the same student in the knowledge it could cause harm, together with the fact she disregarded statutory guidance and the College’s own safeguarding procedures, and the fact she publicly disclosed a student’s disability, only deepens concerns about her suitability for the DSL role or any role in the College.

If the College considered the teacher’s behaviour incompatible with his position, then Walton’s own actions ought to bring her continued role as safeguarding lead under the most serious scrutiny.

 

A Narrative of Inclusion That Rings Hollow

A College spokesperson told the press that Bury College “has no room for discrimination of any kind.” Yet their own safeguarding lead used the same language in direct conversation with the same student. The College also acknowledged at tribunal that a student who voiced discriminatory views about the maths lecturer was merely “spoken to,” not disciplined.

This double standard undercuts the credibility of the College’s rhetoric on inclusivity.

 

Why This Matters

The Bury Times repeated the College’s line that the tribunal “recognised” the maths lecturer’s misconduct. But what the tribunal actually found was that the College failed to follow a fair process, a failure so severe that it rendered the dismissal legally unfair.

The omissions matter. This wasn’t just about one word said in class. It was about inconsistent allegations, ignored policies, selective application of safeguarding rules, and a disciplinary system that punished one staff member while excusing another.

Until those deeper issues are faced, Bury College’s claim to provide a “safe and inclusive environment for all” remains open to challenge.