Claimant v Heaven Beauty Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 11 May 2024 with immediate effect when the respondent closed the business and revoked her access. The process was seriously flawed: no proper information provided, contradictory statements, no reasonable time to consider proposed changes, and no meaningful dialogue. No reasonable employer would have acted this way. The sudden closure on 11 May brought employment to an end unfairly.
The dismissal on 7 May 2024 with notice to 3 June 2024 was not a breach (statutory minimum notice given). However, the subsequent dismissal without notice on 11 May 2024 was a breach of contract. The claimant had done nothing which entitled the respondent to terminate employment summarily. She was entitled to work her notice period to 3 June 2024.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Salon Manager for a beauty business from August 2019. In May 2024 the respondent proposed changing the business model from employment to self-employment/contractor status. On 7 May 2024 the respondent gave notice terminating employment from 3 June 2024. On 11 May 2024, after a heated discussion, the respondent announced permanent closure, revoked the claimant's access, and dismissed her immediately without notice. The respondent subsequently flip-flopped between closure and offering new contracts but the claimant's employment had already ended.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 11 May 2024. The process was seriously flawed: no proper information about proposed changes, contradictory statements, no time to consider, and no meaningful dialogue. The sudden closure and summary dismissal on 11 May was also a breach of contract as the claimant was entitled to work her notice to 3 June. The respondent's employer contract claim was dismissed as without merit.
Practical note
Employers proposing significant changes to terms and conditions (including employment status) must provide clear information, reasonable time for consideration, and meaningful consultation—even small businesses with limited resources cannot short-circuit fair process, and contradictory messages followed by precipitate closure will result in unfair dismissal.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 8.4 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001514/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Beauty Therapist / Salon Manager
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No