Hair stylist with no written contract found to be employee, not self-employed
A hair stylist who worked for just three months at a salon without a written contract has been found by an employment tribunal to be an employee, not self-employed, paving the way for her discrimination and pay claims.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #employment-status
- #hair-salon
- #verbal-agreement
- #no-written-contract
- #trial-period
- #self-employed-arrangement
Key facts
- The claimant applied for a senior stylist role advertised by the respondent.
- The claimant worked at the salon from 8 December 2021 until late February/early March 2022.
- The claimant was paid £12 per hour without deductions for tax or national insurance.
- The respondent considered the claimant self-employed, but the claimant believed she was employed.
- The claimant used the respondent's premises, equipment, and products, and did not send a substitute.
- The tribunal found the claimant was an employee under section 230(1) ERA.
Timeline
-
Job advertisement posted
The respondent advertised for a senior hair stylist on social media, offering a salary from £10 per hour, holiday entitlement, and a probation period.
-
Interview and offer
The claimant attended an interview and was offered the role of senior stylist. The precise hours and pay were not finalised.
-
Agreement to work Wednesdays and Fridays
By text messages, the claimant and respondent agreed she would work Wednesdays and Fridays starting 8 December 2021.
-
First day of work
The claimant started working at the salon, was shown around, and provided with information about holiday forms and the health and safety handbook.
-
Second day of work
The claimant worked on Friday 10 December 2021.
-
Claimant left previous job
The claimant messaged her previous employer stating she had been offered an employed position and was leaving.
-
Telephone conversation about status
The claimant and DT spoke; DT alleged they agreed the claimant would work self-employed temporarily, but the claimant did not agree to this.
-
Claimant stopped working
The claimant ceased working at the salon on or around 25/26 February or 1 March 2022.
-
Claimant requested holiday pay
The claimant emailed DT requesting holiday pay; DT replied stating she was self-employed and not entitled.
-
Preliminary hearing on employment status
Employment Judge Flood heard evidence and reserved judgment on whether the claimant was an employee.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the hair stylist was an employee, a worker, or self-employed, based on the oral agreement and working arrangements, despite the respondent's claim that she was self-employed.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was an employee of Hair at Two Ten Limited.
Key reasons:
- The claimant worked at the respondent's salon, using its premises, equipment, and products.
- She did not have the right to send a substitute.
- She was paid £12 per hour without deductions for tax or national insurance.
- The tribunal found that the reality of the arrangement was one of employment.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the hearing was only on employment status.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work at someone else's premises, use their equipment, and have no right to send a substitute, you are likely to be an employee regardless of what the parties call the arrangement.
- A written contract is not essential to establish employment status; the actual working relationship is what matters.
- Even short-term workers (under two years) can bring claims for discrimination, unpaid wages, and holiday pay if they are employees.
- Employers who treat workers as self-employed without proper justification risk tribunal findings of employment, with potential liability for backdated pay and benefits.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how tribunals look beyond labels to the reality of the working relationship. The hair stylist had no written contract and was paid without deductions, but the key factors—using the salon's premises and equipment, being unable to send a substitute, and receiving an hourly rate—pointed to employment. The tribunal's decision confirms that even short engagements can create employee status, especially where the worker is integrated into the business.
What the salon could have done differently
The respondent, Hair at Two Ten Limited, could have avoided this dispute by providing a written contract clearly setting out the terms, including whether the stylist was an employee or self-employed. They also could have ensured that any self-employed arrangement genuinely reflected independence—for example, allowing the stylist to set her own hours, use her own tools, or send a substitute. Instead, the oral agreement and informal payment method left the status ambiguous, leading to a tribunal finding that the stylist was an employee.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This decision is a reminder that employment status is determined by the facts, not by what the parties call it. Workers in similar roles—such as hairdressers, barbers, or beauty therapists—who work on a salon's premises and under its control may be employees even if they are paid without deductions. The ruling also opens the door for the stylist to pursue her claims for discrimination, unpaid wages, and holiday pay, which would not have been possible if she were self-employed. For anyone in a similar situation, keeping records of hours worked, communications about the role, and any evidence of control by the business can be crucial in proving employee status.
Similar cases
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Delivery driver sacked with abusive language: takeaway ordered to pay £4,656
A delivery driver was unfairly dismissed after his manager told him 'I don't need you any more' and used abusive language. The Watford tribunal awarded £4,656 in compensation.
Site manager dismissed after failed trial period: redundancy process upheld
A site manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a trial period in a lower-paid role was deemed unsuccessful. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.