A dental nurse has been awarded £25,000 for constructive dismissal after she was subjected to ‘rude, isolating, bullying and belittling’ behaviour.
Maureen Howieson worked at the Great Junction Dental Practice in Edinburgh and had more than 40 years’ experience in dental nursing.
In July 2024, the practice was sold to a new owner, Dr Vithayathil. Before this, Howieson mainly covered reception but also carried out dental nursing duties when required. She had psoriatic arthritis, which made it difficult for her to perform some nursing tasks.
Constructive dismissal
Company director wins £15k affter being told to ‘shut up’
Two cautionary tales: how to avoid constructive dismissal cases
Shortly after the acquisition, the practice recruited three new members of staff: a dental nurse and two dental therapists. The latter were qualified as dentists in India but had not undertaken their qualifications in the UK, so were not eligible to practise.
After a period of absence, Howieson returned to work in September 2024 to find that one of the new recruits (Ms Iqbal) was manning reception, and a new telephone system had been introduced on which she had not been trained.
The relationship between Howieson and Iqbal became strained. She told the tribunal that the new staff members did not view her as being in a position of authority and would often exclude her from conversations by speaking in their native language.
Howieson said she became concerned about what her role should be at the practice, and volunteered for any tasks that needed to be carried out, including cleaning duties and instrument contamination, which had previously been handled by a more junior nurse.
On one occasion, she began to feel ill and asked Iqbal to swap her lunch break, but her colleague failed to respond. She broke down in tears, telling management that she felt “left out and unappreciated” and had been reduced to a cleaner.
A further dispute arose around the role of Dr Vithayathil’s wife, who worked part-time at the practice as a business manager, dealing with issues such as HR, finance and payroll. She had previously been introduced as practice manager, a potential role that had been suggested as a possible move for Howieson under the new structure.
The situation between Howieson and Iqbal became worse. When asked to show other employees the decontamination room, Iqbal responded that she was a dentist, not a nurse. Attempts to communicate with her were met with shrugged shoulders, the tribunal heard. Iqbal would frequently roll her eyes if spoken to, and stop speaking to others when Howieson entered the room.
Howieson asked for her role to be clarified and in a meeting, told her manager that she felt patients were picking up on the toxic atmosphere and that she had been given no help with the new systems.
At the end of October 2024, she received her pay and it was around £300 less than expected. Mrs Vitayathil explained that her contract was now broken down hourly, and she had received less because she did not work every second Friday.
This was the “final straw” for Howieson, the tribunal heard, and she sent a letter of resignation the following day. In her letter, she described her colleagues’ conduct as “an attempt to remove her from the practice”, and “a coordinated effort to isolate, belittle and bully her out of the business”.
Mrs Vitayathil replied, stating she was sorry about Howieson’s decision to resign, but that she had been a valued member of the team. Her underpaid salary arrived two weeks’ later.
‘Lack of diligence’
The tribunal ruled that the salary underpayment was “not a deliberate or calculated breach” by the practice, but was a lack of diligence.
It found that there was “a course of conduct comprising several acts or omissions which, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach” of contract.
Employment Judge Ronald Mackay said: “The failure of the respondent to deal with the clear concerns the claimant raised on more than one occasion was an unacceptable omission on its part.
“There was a recognition of the validity of the concerns, and assurances that they would be dealt with, but the assurances were not kept leading to an ongoing hostile working environment.”
The judge accepted Howieson’s description of her colleagues’ behaviour as “rude, isolating, bullying and belittling”; conduct that in itself, could be considered repudiatory.
She was awarded a basic award of £15,100 and compensatory award of £10,100.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Change management opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Change management jobs
