Dublin dental clinic ordered to pay unfairly dismissed dentist €30,000 compensation

The amount of compensation a Dublin dental practice must pay to an unfairly dismissed dentist has more than doubled to €30,000 after he lost his appeal at the employment tribunal.

The court rejected an application by The Square Dental Services which sought to overturn a Workplace Relations Commission decision that it had unfairly dismissed Min Ling from her clinic at The Square shopping center in Tallaght.

The WRC had awarded Dr Min compensation of €14,378 after concluding that she had been sanctioned for refusing to sign a contract worth €9,000 less than the salary stipulated by the Ministry of Enterprise, Commerce and Employment in his work permit.

READ MORE – Aer Lingus passengers ‘dumped’ outside Spanish airport in the middle of the night

READ MORE – Aging mob boss John Gilligan denies claims he has cancer

Employment tribunal deputy chairman Alan Haugh said the testimony of four witnesses from the dental clinic was “lacking credibility, contradictory and unconvincing”.

It found that the dental clinic provided no records to support its claims regarding Dr. Min’s performance and clinical deficiencies or losses due to his alleged failure to explain treatment plans to patients.

The Canadian dentist saw her job terminated on November 3, 2021, two days after refusing to sign a new contract providing for a base salary of €55,000 for a 39-hour week.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had informed the company when it applied for a critical skills work permit for Dr Min that the minimum salary payable to obtain it was €64,000.

The dentist said she refused senior dentist Hima Bindu Meda’s request to work overtime “to earn up to $64,000 gross.”

However, Dr Min said that two days later, on November 2, 2021, a director of the company, Jagannadha Muttumula, unexpectedly asked him to immediately sign a revised contract which stipulated that his salary would be €55,000 .

Dr Min was given a five-week notice of dismissal the next day after refusing to sign the contract.

The dentist rejected the company’s claims that she was fired due to alleged poor clinical performance.

Dr Min confirmed to the Labor Council that she had never been the subject of a performance improvement plan or a complaint to her profession’s regulator.

As evidence, Dr Meda said an incident occurred just three days after Dr Min started working in the practice when she had difficulty completing a patient’s treatment, while She also had to speak to the dentist several times about overrunning her appointments.

Dr. Meda said the plaintiff was given a revised contract to sign to ensure she took clinical responsibility for her work.

The witness said Dr. Min was fired because she was not ready to take on clinical responsibilities, was not a team player, and did not explain plans treatment of several patients.

She claimed that around 50% of the dentist’s patients had made complaints about her, resulting in a financial loss for the practice.

The Labor Court noted that the issue of complaints against her was not put to Dr Min during her cross-examination.

The clinic’s head nurse, Samantha Higgins, testified that she felt intimidated working with Dr. Min because she was “very lively.”

Practice director Sruthi Pitta claimed the clinic suffered losses of up to €4,000 because the dentist failed to record the full treatment provided to patients.

However, she admitted that there was no supporting documentation to support such a claim.

Mr Muttumula, who is Dr Meta’s husband, said Dr Min never raised any issues over the terms of his work permit, although the dentist provided copies of two emails sent to the witness about the permit.

He claimed her job was terminated after it was decided she was “not a good person”.

The employment tribunal said there was clear evidence that Dr Min had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings or performance improvement plans.

He said the clinic’s reason for firing her had not been given and should be “treated with skepticism.”

Mr Haugh said the most likely explanation for the decision to fire the dentist was her refusal to sign a new employment contract which attempted to get her to work more hours in return for a salary of 64,000 €.

The employment tribunal said Mr Muttumula had falsely claimed the contract was “binding”.

He said the contract was in the form of a standard template available on the Irish Dental Association website, but which had been largely modified in favor of the dental clinic.

Mr Haugh ordered the €30,000 compensation to be paid within 42 days of the decision.

Join the Irish Mirror news service on WhatsApp. Click on this link to receive the latest news and headlines straight to your phone. We also provide members of our community with special offers, promotions and advertising from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check it out at any time. If you are curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.