Case 2203729/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Mary Arofah v Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203729/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Mary Arofah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Mary Arofah was employed by The Midcounties Co-operative Limited as a senior childcare practitioner at a nursery. The dispute arose from an incident on 11 January 2022 involving a three-year-old child, S. After S's mother reported finger marks and a thumb print on S's face, Ms Williams reviewed CCTV footage and found the claimant moved S to one side, placed a full hand over S's face and pushed her head back. The claimant said she was checking for a sticker or otherwise playing, but she did not give a clear explanation at the hearing.
Ms Williams carried out the investigation, spoke to colleagues, consulted the local authority LADO and suspended the claimant. Ms Blaney then conducted the disciplinary process, viewed the CCTV, considered the claimant's explanations, her apology, her experience and the fact that she had a live verbal warning on file. She concluded that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed the claimant summarily on 2 February 2022. The dismissal letter was emailed but not sent by post, and the claimant said she did not receive it, so she did not appeal.
The tribunal held that misconduct was the genuine reason for dismissal, that the investigation was reasonable, and that Ms Blaney made her own decision independently. It rejected the claimant's case that she had been targeted by Ms Williams, that the process was predetermined, or that the dismissal was tainted by a racist undertone. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses test, the tribunal found the dismissal fair.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct towards S was serious enough to undermine trust and confidence in a senior childcare role. It held that the claimant had breached the respondent's safeguarding and conduct policies and that summary dismissal was justified. Both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found misconduct was the genuine reason for dismissal, that the investigation and disciplinary decision were reasonable, and that there was no evidence of bias or a racist undertone. The claimant had mentioned race in her witness statement, but no amendment to add a discrimination claim was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was pleaded in the judgment under breach of contract / wrongful dismissal. The tribunal held that the claimant's handling of the child amounted to a sufficiently serious repudiatory breach to justify summary dismissal without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- reasonable investigation
- genuine belief
- reasonable grounds
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspaper) Ltd
- Mgubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Jupiter General Insurance Co Ltd v Shroff
- Lane v Secretary of State for Education
- repudiatory breach of contract
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.