31 - How Deputy Principal Becky Tootell’s Handling of the Disciplinary Process May Have Undermined Fairness at Bury College

The recent employment tribunal involving a dismissed teacher from Bury College has cast serious doubt over the role of Deputy Principal Becky Tootell, who chaired the disciplinary hearing that led to the teacher’s dismissal. Testimony and documentation presented during the public hearing highlighted multiple procedural irregularities, questionable judgments, and breaches of policy directly attributed to her.

This article examines the key alleged breaches and procedural failings by Ms. Tootell and their potential implications for the tribunal’s determination of fairness.

1. Dismissal Based on Speculation, Not Evidence

Becky Tootell stated in her witness statement that her reason for dismissal was not based on the teacher using the word “retard,” but rather her lack of confidence that the behaviour would not be repeated. Her justification for a finding of gross misconduct included the claim that:

“A lesser sanction would present students and the College with a risk… I had no confidence that this behaviour would not be repeated in the future.”

However, the teacher:

  • Had no prior disciplinary record.

  • Had apologised multiple times for his conduct.

  • Agreed that he would never repeat the behaviour.

  • Had already resumed work for a week without incident after informal resolution.

No formal risk assessment was conducted. The conclusion that he posed an ongoing risk was based on speculation and personal judgment, not on evidence of pattern, harm, or future threat.

2. Lack of Awareness of Key Safeguarding Policy

At tribunal, Ms. Tootell admitted she was not aware that Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE), statutory guidance, states that concerns falling below the harm threshold should be managed using a low-level concerns policy. Despite the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) finding that the threshold of harm was not met, Ms. Tootell continued disciplinary proceedings under the gross misconduct route.

This ignorance of key safeguarding guidance raises questions about whether she was competent to chair a disciplinary hearing involving safeguarding concerns.

3. Failure to Disclose Key Evidence

One of the documents relied upon by the College, a note relating to a conversation with Student A, was not disclosed to the teacher until after the disciplinary process was finnished. This note later revealed that Sarah Walton, the College’s own Designated Safeguarding Lead, had used the same word ("retard") with the same student. The failure to disclose this in advance deprived the teacher of the opportunity to raise a critical inconsistency in how the College applied its policies.

Ms. Tootell claimed in her witness statement that she provided this note to the teacher during the disciplinary hearing and apologised for the oversight. However, there is no record of that apology or exchange in the disciplinary hearing notes. The appeal officer, Charlie Deane, later contradicted her by stating the note was only given after the appeal.

This inconsistency raises concerns over the reliability of her account and the procedural transparency of the hearing she chaired.

4. Selective Dismissal of Supporting Evidence

During cross-examination, Ms. Tootell was shown the teacher’s most recent performance review, which stated:

“He’s also very reflective and he’s able to amend his practice when necessary.”

She dismissed the review with the phrase, “That’s just one manager’s opinion.” However, that manager had been tasked with reviewing the teacher’s overall performance, and reviews are meant to assess behaviour, growth, and professional development.

By disregarding this evidence entirely, Ms. Tootell showed an apparent unwillingness to consider mitigation or context that conflicted with her decision to dismiss.

5. Failure to Challenge Procedural Gaps

The disciplinary hearing also made reference to a second allegation involving a training session, yet no evidence was presented, and the matter was never discussed during the hearing. Despite the absence of fact-finding or challenge, Ms. Tootell stated "he chose to defend the accusation" implying that the teacher himself was responsible for any stress he suffered in preparing a defence for an allegation that was never address.

This constitutes a procedural irregularity, one that Ms. Tootell, as chair, had a duty to remedy.

6. Dismissed Apology Based on Tone, Not Content

The teacher apologised in writing and during the disciplinary hearing. Nevertheless, Ms. Tootell deemed the apology insincere because it was followed by the teacher’s attempts to explain the context and defend himself.

Her interpretation of his “attitude” appeared to hinge more on how he expressed himself under pressure than on whether he genuinely accepted that his words may have caused offence.

This suggests a biased interpretation and a failure to consider that self-defence is not the same as lack of remorse.

7. Applied Policies Inconsistently

Ms. Tootell did not explain why the same College policies used against the teacher were not applied to Sarah Walton, the DSL, who used the same word with the same student. She also failed to address:

  • The College's Equality and Diversity policy, which opposes all forms of discrimination.

  • The requirement for fair and proportionate responses.

The failure to even acknowledge this discrepancy creates the appearance of double standards and selective accountability.

8. Ignored Prior Informal Resolution

Shehla Ijaz, the teacher’s line manager, resolved the original concern informally to the satisfaction of both Student B and her mother. This action was not challenged or questioned at the time.

Despite this, Ms. Tootell proceeded with a disciplinary hearing without exploring why a previously resolved matter was re-opened, nor did she question whether Shehla had acted appropriately within her remit, which could have voided the need for formal escalation.

9. Allowed Discrepancies in Evidence Handling

Despite knowing the investigation notes were amended after the teacher raised accuracy concerns, Ms. Tootell still relied on them in the disciplinary decision without ensuring their final accuracy. She also did not ensure that further notes from the same note-taker, known to have produced inaccurate records, were verified.

This calls into question the integrity of the evidentiary basis for dismissal.

Conclusion: A Procedurally Flawed Hearing with Questionable Fairness

As the judge deliberates, Becky Tootell’s role will likely come under sharp scrutiny. The evidence points to a disciplinary process marked by:

  • A dismissal based on speculative risk, not proven misconduct.

  • Reliance on unverified and undisclosed documentation.

  • Dismissal of key mitigating evidence and employee review findings.

  • Inconsistent application of policy and disregard for safeguarding guidance.

Her handling of the case raises serious concerns about whether the disciplinary outcome was fair, reasonable, and legally sound. Whether or not the tribunal ultimately finds in favour of the claimant, the procedural irregularities surrounding Ms. Tootell’s conduct cannot be ignored.

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