Claimant v Wynter Rose Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee as defined by ERA 1996 s.230(1), but rather a self-employed contractor. Without employee status, she had no standing to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal concluded she had control over her own hours, could substitute others, provided her own equipment, was responsible for her own tax, and clients booked directly with her, not through the respondent.
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee as defined by ERA 1996 s.230(1). As wrongful dismissal requires a contract of employment, the claimant had no standing to bring this claim. The tribunal determined the arrangement was one of self-employment, not employment.
Failure to provide written statement of reasons for dismissal (s.92/93 ERA) dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee and therefore had no statutory right to such a statement.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker as defined by ERA 1996 s.230(2). Worker status is required to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal concluded she was a self-employed contractor operating her own business from the salon.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker as defined by ERA 1996 s.230(2) and therefore had no entitlement to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The arrangement was one of self-employment with no mutuality of obligation.
Failure to provide itemised pay statement (s.8/11(2) ERA) dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee and therefore had no statutory right to such a statement. The claimant was responsible for her own tax calculations and payments.
This claim was withdrawn by the claimant prior to the preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a hairstylist from the respondent's curly hair salon from June 2021 to February 2024. She signed a written contract but the tribunal found this was dispensed with at a meeting on 14 June 2021 and replaced with a verbal self-employment arrangement. Clients booked directly with the claimant via the respondent's online system. She set her own hours, could substitute others, provided her own equipment including a trolley, and was responsible for her own tax. She was paid fixed amounts per service, not a percentage as the written contract stated. In February 2024, after a dispute involving the claimant's twin sister (also a stylist at the salon), the claimant was told it would not make sense for her to continue working from the salon.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under ERA 1996. All claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal concluded there was no mutuality of obligation, insufficient control by the respondent, freedom to work elsewhere, ability to substitute, provision of own equipment, and responsibility for own tax—all pointing to self-employment. The written contract did not reflect the true working relationship.
Practical note
A written contract can be dispensed with if the parties' conduct shows they operated under different terms, and tribunals will apply the multi-factorial Autoclenz test to determine true employment status, with particular weight on mutuality of obligation, control, and whether the individual is in business on their own account.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201158/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- hairstylist
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep