Miss Clare Burrows v Represented by: Hazel Burrows Michelle Boyle t/a The Beauty Academy — 2021

The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Michelle Boyle trading as The Beauty Academy, finding that The Beauty Academy was not a legal entity. The claimant was a hairdresser who worked only when appointments were booked, typically on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. She could mark herself unavailable on the salon diary, had no fixed hours, and was paid 40% of the price paid by clients while the respondent retained 60%.

Applying Ready Mixed Concrete and the later authorities on mutuality and control, the tribunal held that the claimant provided personal service when she attended booked appointments, but there was no mutuality of obligation. She could decline work by blocking herself out or simply not attending, and the tribunal found that she was not under a sufficient contractual right of control because she chose when to arrive and leave, was not subject to day-to-day direction, and was not disciplined for complaints or missed appointments.

The tribunal also held that the other features of the arrangement were inconsistent with a contract of service and that the claimant was not a worker within section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996. It noted that she worked for other people, supplied some of her own equipment, bore some financial risk, worked only when clients booked, and was not integrated into the respondent's business in the way required by the case law. The claims for unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay under section 13 ERA 1996 were therefore dismissed.