Handling workplace grievances in dental practices: a practical step-by-step guide

A clear grievance procedure helps dental practices protect staff and avoid costly mistakes. Alicja Zajac explains each stage, from investigation to appeal.

In small dental practices, close working relationships and overlapping responsibilities can make it difficult to distinguish everyday frustrations from formal grievances.

When concerns are mishandled, even unintentionally, practices expose themselves to discrimination claims, constructive dismissal allegations, and the financial impact of the 25% ACAS uplift. A clear, consistent process is essential for protecting both staff and the business.

When does the grievance procedure apply?

The first step is recognising when a concern becomes a formal grievance. Everyday operational complaints (such as broken heating or missing glove sizes) require practical fixes, not legal procedures. 

A grievance arises when an employee raises a concern (whether verbally or in writing) about treatment, fairness, contractual terms, or legal rights.

Even if they do not use the word ‘grievance,’ statements such as ‘My diary was changed without notice after I requested reasonable adjustments’ or ‘I’m being micromanaged differently than my peers’ trigger the ACAS Code of Practice and must be handled formally.

Protecting confidentiality and appointing an investigator

A common scenario illustrates how easily things can go wrong. 

A dental nurse confidentially reports excessive micromanagement and unfair diary distribution to the practice manager. Hoping for a quick resolution, the manager passes the issue to the head nurse and asks her to ‘sort it out internally.’

This well intentioned shortcut immediately breaches confidentiality and UK GDPR principles, because grievance information must only be shared with those directly involved in investigating the matter. It also exposes the nurse to the risk of victimisation.

If the Head Nurse later alters shifts, restricts equipment access, or behaves coldly, the practice may be liable under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 for failing to protect the complainant from retaliatory treatment.

Correct handling begins with a written acknowledgement within 24 to 48 hours and secure logging of the grievance in a confidential register. Access should be strictly limited, and managers must resist the temptation to delegate resolution to colleagues who work clinically alongside the complainant. Early containment sets the tone for a fair and compliant process.

Once the grievance is logged, the practice must appoint an impartial investigator. In small teams, this can be challenging because everyone works closely together.

The investigator must be uninvolved in the issue and able to conduct a neutral factfinding process. Practices can achieve this by partnering with a neighbouring noncompeting practice, engaging an external HR consultant, or allocating the investigation to a partner or senior clinician with no direct involvement. Independence is essential for credibility and legal compliance.

What if the grievance concerns the practice principal?

The most difficult situation arises when the grievance concerns the practice principal or manager. In these cases, the usual internal process cannot be used without risking bias. The principal or manager must step aside entirely, and the investigation should be handled by an external HR professional, a dental association advisor, or a partner who has had no involvement in the matter. Documenting this independence helps reassure the employee and protects the practice if the matter escalates.

After the investigation, the practice should invite the employee to a formal hearing, providing reasonable notice and confirming their right to be accompanied by a trade union representative or colleague. The hearing should allow the employee to present their case, respond to the evidence, and clarify any points.

Once the hearing concludes, the practice must issue a written decision explaining the findings and any actions to be taken. If the employee disagrees with the outcome, they must be offered the opportunity to appeal, and the appeal should be heard by someone senior to or independent of the original decision-maker.

The cost of getting the grievance procedure wrong

Following these steps is not simply good practice – it is a legal safeguard. Under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, tribunals may increase compensation awards by up to 25% if an employer unreasonably fails to follow the ACAS Code.

Breaches such as leaking confidential information, skipping hearings, denying companion rights, or failing to offer an appeal can significantly increase financial exposure, particularly in discrimination or constructive dismissal cases.

Operational hierarchy may run the clinic, but statutory procedure protects the business. By recognising grievances early, handling them confidentially, and ensuring impartiality at every stage, dental practices strengthen team relationships and shield themselves from costly tribunal penalties.

References:

1. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas). Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Published 11 March 2015.
2. Equality Act 2010, section 27: victimisation.
3. Regulation (EU) 2016/679: United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, particularly Article 5: principles relating to processing personal data and Article 32: security of processing.
4. Data Protection Act 2018.
5. Information Commissioner’s Office. Employment practices and data protection: keeping employment records.
6. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 207A: adjustment of tribunal awards.
7. Employment Relations Act 1999, section 10: right to be accompanied.

Create a free account for unlimited access — plus the Dentistry Bulletin delivered to your inbox.