‘Self-employed’ hairdresser ruled an employee by the Manchester Employment Tribunal
This landmark case furthered the decision of Pimlico Plumbers v Smith  UKSC 29 in deciding when a Claimant is a ‘worker’ or an ‘employee’.
The Claimant, Ms Gorman, a hairdresser at a Terence Paul salon in Manchester, brought an action against her former employers for holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay following the Salon’s closure in 2019.
The Claimant alleged that, although she had a contract as a self-employed hairdresser, the level of control exercise by her bosses over matters such as her working hours and conditions, and her pay (with her employer receiving a generous 67% of her takings) meant that she was effectively an employee.
The salon on the other hand claimed that the company’s self-employed hairdressers had control over the hours and days that they worked.
EJ Batten gave judgment in the Claimant’s favour in March with the reasons being released last week.
The decision could have far-reaching consequences for employees and workers in other industries were similar business models are utilised, whilst we still await the outcome of the Uber drivers appeal to the supreme court in a case with similar issues.