46 - Why has Bury College not sacked Sarah Walton, Becky Tootell and Charlie Deane?

That may sound like a ridiculous question.

But it is a question created by their own reasoning.

Becky Tootell relied upon what she regarded as his lack of remorse and lack of accountability when dismissing the claimant.

Importantly, this was not simply a factor considered alongside a decision that dismissal was already inevitable. Becky expressly relied upon the claimant's lack of remorse and lack of accountability when deciding that dismissal was appropriate. His perceived lack of remorse and accountability therefore formed part of the reason why a lesser sanction was not considered sufficient.

Charlie Deane went further. He said that the claimant's position gave him "no confidence" that the claimant understood the gravity of his behaviour and therefore "no confidence that this situation would not happen again."

The way the claimant defended himself against the allegation was treated as evidence that he did not recognise the wrongdoing of his actions, and therefore as a reason to doubt his accountability and future conduct.

That was the standard applied to the claimant.

So let's apply it to those from the College who judged the claimant.

 

Sarah Walton

Sarah maintained that she had conducted a fair and thorough investigation.

Yet the Tribunal subsequently found that the College had not carried out a reasonable investigation.

If the claimant's failure to recognise wrongdoing was evidence against him of poor accountability and a reason to question his future conduct, what does Sarah's continued confidence in an investigation which the Tribunal subsequently found was not reasonable say about her ability to recognise wrongdoing, and what effect does that have on her own accountability and future judgment?

The Tribunal's finding does not prove Sarah would repeat the same mistakes.

But that isn't the standard the College applied to the claimant.

The College did not need proof that he would repeat the conduct.

They were simply not prepared to take the risk that he might.

 

Becky Tootell

Becky expressly relied upon lack of remorse and lack of accountability when deciding that dismissal was appropriate.

The claimant had apologised for using the word.

He did not apologise for an allegation he maintained was untrue.

Yet the way he defended himself was treated as evidence that he did not recognise the wrongdoing of his actions.

The Tribunal subsequently identified significant procedural failings in the process.

Yet Becky maintained that the College had acted properly.


So apply her own reasoning:

Failure to recognise wrongdoing → lack of accountability → reason to question future conduct.

Becky maintained that she and the College had done nothing wrong.

Therefore, by the very reasoning applied to the claimant, she did not recognise the wrongdoing subsequently identified in the process.

If that reasoning was sufficient to help justify dismissing the claimant, why should it not apply to the person who made the disciplinary decision?

Again, this does not prove Becky would repeat the same procedural mistakes.

But the College didn't require proof that the claimant would repeat his conduct either.

They were simply not prepared to take the risk that he might.

 

Charlie Deane

Charlie expressly linked the claimant's attitude to the possibility of repetition.

He said: "I could therefore have no confidence that this situation would not happen again."

He also stated: "Procedurally, I consider there to be no material errors."

Yet the Tribunal subsequently found that the College had not carried out a reasonable investigation and had "unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures."

Charlie's assessment that there were no material procedural errors was therefore called into question by the Tribunal's findings.

Charlie maintained that the College had done nothing wrong.

Therefore, by the same reasoning applied to the claimant, he did not recognise the wrongdoing subsequently identified in the process.


So again:

If failing to recognise wrongdoing means there is no confidence that the conduct will not happen again, what effect does Charlie's failure to recognise wrongdoing have on his accountability and future judgment?


Those failings cost the College time and money

The failings in the process ultimately resulted in the College having to spend time and money defending an Employment Tribunal claim and facing financial consequences.

The College had an interest in ensuring that its disciplinary decisions were reached through a proper and reasonable process.

Yet the Tribunal found that the College had not carried out a reasonable investigation, identified significant procedural failings and had “unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures.”

So, applying the College's own reasoning once again:

If the College had no confidence in an employee's future judgment because his failure to recognise wrongdoing meant he lacked accountability and remorse, then the College should have a similar lack of confidence in those responsible for the process, because their failure to recognise wrongdoing meant they too demonstrated a lack of accountability and remorse and, in this case, their decisions also cost the College time and money.

All three people in positions of authority, Sarah, Becky and Charlie, exercised flawed judgment in the process they conducted, and all three continued to stand by their actions when those actions were challenged at Tribunal. 

So the question is not simply whether they might repeat the same mistakes. It is also what confidence the College can have in their judgment when their decisions resulted in a Tribunal finding of significant procedural failings, yet they maintained that they had done nothing wrong even when those failings were being put to them.


As it stands:

The way the claimant defended himself against the allegation was treated as evidence that he did not recognise the wrongdoing of his actions, and therefore as a reason to doubt his accountability and future conduct. → DISMISSAL

Sarah, Becky and Charlie, however, maintained that they had done nothing wrong in the conduct of the process. The Tribunal found otherwise. They were the people who carried out, made decisions within, and defended that process. Therefore, they had failed to recognise the wrongdoing in the process for which they were responsible. Using their own reasoning, which they applied to the claimant in order to dismiss him, their failure to recognise that wrongdoing is a reason to doubt their accountability and future conduct. → YET, NO DISMISSAL

Same reasoning. Different outcome.



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