Dental receptionist dismissed after prolonged performance improvement plan: dismissal fair
A dental receptionist with over seven years' service was fairly dismissed after a lengthy performance improvement process. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #dental-receptionist
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #long-term-underperformance
- #multiple-appeals
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a dental receptionist from 27 August 2013 until dismissal on 10 February 2021.
- She was placed on an informal PIP on 8 July 2019 and a formal PIP on 13 September 2019 due to persistent errors.
- The claimant made numerous errors including incorrect patient data, missed appointments, and failure to follow procedures.
- She was issued a Stage 1 formal warning on 9 December 2019, which was later rescinded on appeal, but the PIP remained.
- After further errors, she received a Stage 2 final written warning on 30 September 2020, upheld on appeal.
- The claimant was dismissed on 10 February 2021 following a Stage 3 PIP review, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a dental receptionist.
-
Caroline Simmons joined
Caroline Simmons became Practice Manager.
-
Previous tribunal claim disclosed
Marian Clark told Ms Simmons about claimant's 2013 tribunal claim; Ms Simmons paid little attention.
-
Ms Simmons became direct manager
Ms Simmons took over management of claimant due to poor relationship with Angela McFarlane.
-
Informal PIP started
Claimant placed on informal Performance Improvement Plan.
-
Formal PIP started
Claimant placed on formal Stage 1 PIP after failing to improve.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted grievance about Angela McFarlane's conduct.
-
Stage 1 formal warning issued
Claimant received Stage 1 formal warning for continued errors.
-
Warning rescinded on appeal
Appeal upheld, warning removed from file, but PIP remained.
-
Second Stage 1 warning issued
Claimant issued another Stage 1 formal warning for 14 errors.
-
Stage 2 final written warning
Claimant received final written warning for numerous errors.
-
Stage 3 PIP commenced
Final stage of PIP started.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed on grounds of poor performance.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal against dismissal rejected by Gayle Clague.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's dismissal for poor performance was fair, specifically whether the respondent had a fair reason and acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent had a fair reason for dismissal – poor performance – and acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
Key reasons:
- The employer had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance, evidenced by numerous errors over a long period.
- A thorough performance improvement process was followed, including informal and formal PIPs, warnings, and appeals.
- The claimant was given adequate time and support to improve, but the errors continued.
- The employer considered alternatives to dismissal, such as moving the claimant to a different role, but none were available.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should follow a clear performance improvement process with adequate support and time for improvement, especially for long-serving employees.
- Multiple warnings and appeals that are properly conducted can help demonstrate a fair process in a capability dismissal.
- Employees should take performance concerns seriously and engage with the improvement process, as failure to improve can lead to dismissal.
- Tribunals will look at the overall fairness of the process, not just individual steps, when assessing a dismissal.
A long road to dismissal
The claimant, a dental receptionist with over seven years' service, was dismissed after a prolonged performance improvement process that lasted over 18 months. The tribunal found that the employer, Oasis Dental Care Limited, had genuine concerns about her performance, including errors in patient data, missed appointments, and failure to follow procedures. The employer placed her on an informal PIP in July 2019, followed by a formal PIP in September 2019. Despite multiple warnings and appeals, the errors continued, leading to a final written warning in September 2020 and ultimately dismissal in February 2021.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer followed a structured process: informal and formal PIPs, staged warnings, and opportunities to appeal at each stage. The claimant was given support, including training and supervision, and the employer considered alternatives to dismissal, such as moving her to a different role, but none were available. The tribunal also found that the employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, given the persistent nature of the errors and the length of the improvement process.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the real reasons for her dismissal were a previous tribunal claim and personal dislike by her manager. However, the tribunal rejected these arguments, finding that the employer's evidence showed a genuine focus on performance. The tribunal also found that the employer had not breached the ACAS Code of Practice. The claim was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that employers can fairly dismiss long-serving employees for poor performance if they follow a thorough and fair process. Employees should engage with performance improvement plans and seek to address concerns, as failure to improve can lead to dismissal even after many years of service.
Similar cases
Senior IT analyst dismissed without chance to respond: procedural unfairness in a performance improvement plan
A senior IT analyst with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after being handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter at a meeting described as a PIP review. The tribunal found the employer had already made up its mind.
Senior auditor dismissed after taking time off to care for ill father: automatic unfair dismissal claim rejected
A tribunal has ruled that a senior internal auditor with one year's service was not automatically unfairly dismissed for taking time off to care for his seriously ill father. The claim was dismissed.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee stayed on for months
A solutions engineer who resigned after a performance improvement plan and grievance process lost his constructive dismissal claim because he stayed in the job too long after the alleged breaches.
Shift team leader loses constructive dismissal claim after credibility issues
A shift team leader with 9 years' service resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan, but the tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no breach of contract and serious credibility problems with his evidence.