Hairdresser unfairly dismissed for “profane” barb over stolen client

A hair salon has been ordered to pay compensation to a disgruntled former employee, with the Fair Work Commission ruling that the small business unfairly dismissed the hairdresser when she was summarily sacked after allegedly “threatening” the salon manager over a client booking dispute.

The hairdresser had been working at the salon for approximately 18 months – nearly a year of which had been served under a previous owner – when she became involved in an argument with the salon manager in June 2025. The hairdresser confronted the manager in front of customers after becoming aware one of her clients had been booked with another stylist. The discussion continued in private, and after having levelled accusations that the salon manager was “terrible” at her job, the hairdresser apologised to both the owner and manager “and agreed that she would not question [the manager] in front of a client again”.

The hairdresser understood she would be subject to a “verbal warning” but, several days later, received written notice of termination. The salon owner referenced the hairdresser’s “unprofessional” behaviour and the fact she had not signed the employment agreement she had been issued on 23 May as reasons for concluding her employment. Although being engaged as a casual, the owner offered the hairdresser the opportunity to serve out a two week notice period, which was agreed to. It was during the hairdresser’s first shift of the notice period that she allegedly engaged in another heated exchange with the salon manager in front of customers, saying words to the effect of, “Don’t worry about contacting my clients, I have already contacted them and I’m taking them all with me. I hope karma gets you like the c**t you are.” The hairdresser was asked to leave the salon and was later informed by email that the owner had decided to terminate her employment “effective immediately” due to her “continued unprofessional conduct, particularly in front of clients”.

Deputy President Lake considered the termination against the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, determining that the dismissal failed to satisfy the Code, finding that the salon owner could not have held a “reasonable belief” that the hairdresser had engaged in serious misconduct, because the owner did not properly investigate the incident. Instead, the owner had solely relied upon the account of the salon manager, which the Deputy President labelled “vague”, identifying he preferred the evidence of the hairdresser who admitted she had made the statement, “this is bulls**t”, but insisted this was not done in front of any customers. Deputy President Lake assessed that the owner had erred in relying upon the salon manager’s account which had been relayed “over the phone”, adding, “In the cases of workplace arguments, at the very least, the employer should attempt to hear both sides, even through an informal discussion, before making a decision on termination”.

Even with the hairdresser conceding she had sworn at the salon manager, the Deputy President was not satisfied that her “unprofessional” behaviour constituted serious misconduct. Deputy President Lake acknowledged the hairdresser had behaved inappropriately “on two shifts”, but said there was “no evidence that the [hairdresser] threatened anyone”, choosing to characterise the “profane” comment as the employee “expressing frustration”. He suggested, “the appropriate response from the employer would have been a written warning”.

In reference to the employer’s claim that the hairdresser had “engaged in solicitation of clients”, Deputy President Lake noted this alleged incident occurred after the hairdresser had been given her original notice of termination and he considered the employee was entitled to “tell clients, with whom she has a professional relationship, about where she would be working, especially if the client initiated the conversation”. He was also not persuaded that the hairdresser’s failure to sign off on the employment agreement presented to her on 23 May was relevant to the employer’s deliberations, identifying that both parties had worked successfully without a written contract for six months prior, adding that the employee “was entitled to properly review the contract before signing”. Finding the hairdresser’s conduct to have been unprofessional but not sufficiently serious to justify termination, Deputy President Lake concluded there was no valid reason for dismissal, rendering the decision unfair.

Turning to consider remedy, the Deputy President assessed the hairdresser would have likely remained employed for a maximum period of another month, “considering the fractious relationship” with the salon manager. He awarded the hairdresser $1732 (gross) compensation; an amount equivalent to the remuneration she would have earned had her employment not been terminated.

Depp v Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 189 (29 January 2026)