Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Mills –v- Dhinsa Dental Ltd
Employment Tribunal

Issues

(1) Failure to provide payslip
(2) Wages
(3) Automatic unfair dismissal

Facts

Miss Mills had been employed as a dental nurse and receptionist by Dhinsa Dental Ltd. Dr Dhinsa was a director of the company and his wife was the practice manager. Miss Mills’ contract of employment stated that she would be paid by bank transfer at the end of the month.

On three occasions Miss Mills did not receive her payslips. She raised this matter with her employer. As she was dyslexic, she found it was difficult to keep track of her finances without a payslip. In January 2010 Dr Dhinsa said to Miss Mills, “you must be happy, it’s pay day today”. However, when checking her bank account the next day she found she had not been paid. She was upset and decided to raise the matter with Dr Dhinsa.

When he arrived at work the next day he was unhappy with Miss Mills. He alleged that she had left a patient standing outside the premises and had been rude and aggressive towards him. She raised the issue of her outstanding wages and he agreed that she could leave the premises to check her account balance at the cash machine next door. Miss Mills was later told by a colleague that Mrs Dhinsa had asked that Miss Mills be told to leave the surgery immediately. She was very upset and telephoned Mrs Dhinsa. Miss Mills alleged she was told to collect her things, return her key and leave. Miss Mills was shocked by her treatment as she had only queried her payslip. Mrs Dhinsa alleged that Miss Mills had been rude to her. Later, it was alleged that Mrs Dhinsa had telephoned Miss Mills at home apologising for the situation and stressing that her job was safe. In turn, Mrs Dhinsa alleged that she had told Miss Mills that an investigation would be needed regarding the allegation in relation to the patient. She denied saying that Miss Mills’ job was safe.

Later, Miss Mills was invited to a meeting which she felt she should not attend until she had advice. The next time she attended work she was told by Dr Dhinsa that she would be getting a letter and was not required at work. She then received a letter dismissing her, referring to the way in which Miss Mills had handled the issue of her pay and the incident with the patient. The Dhinsas’ view was that her actions had resulted in a breakdown of trust and confidence.

She brought automatic unfair dismissal on grounds that she had been asserting a statutory right to be paid her wages on time and for asserting the right to a written itemised pay statement. She also brought a claim for unlawful deduction.

Decision

The Tribunal found in Miss Mills’ favour, the Tribunal having preferred her evidence over that of the employer. The Tribunal concluded that her requests in relation to her wages and payslips were made in good faith and that the reason for the dismissal was the assertion of those rights. The Tribunal concluded that the company’s argument that the reason for the dismissal was the patient incident was “wholly without foundation” and it was an afterthought used to justify the dismissal.

Comments

This case is a useful reminder that there are exceptions to the service rules in unfair dismissal claims so employees with less than one year’s service may bring a claim of unfair dismissal in certain circumstances. Whilst there was a considerable disagreement of evidence in this particular case, it is clear that the employer simply did not appreciate the significance of Miss Mills’ request.