Your rights: Hairdresser gets the brush-off

Q: I run a hairdressing salon and members of my team are all on a 'rent a chair' system which basically means each one is self-employed.
Currently I have one person helping themselves to cash from staff tips and the till.
I have approached her outright and said I know what is happening with the money and I have asked her not to use the till any more but she ignores me.
Do I write her a letter outlining why she's not allowed to use the till and state that this is a written warning or legally do I have to take certain steps?
I have continued to let her rent as I had read that self-employed people now have certain rights and it has caused me doubt about what I can do.
Her contract has expired and I won't be getting her to sign another.
The girls get paid at the end of each week, which is 50 per cent of their weekly takings.
What legally can I do?

A: If your hairdressers are self-employed and simply operate from your premises and pay you 'rent' - as they appear to from your question - your only obligations to them will be those that you have agreed to (in writing and/or verbally).

You mention that your contract with your "sticky-fingered" hairdresser has run out. You can simply explain that the contract has come to an end, provide her with the notice (if any) specified in the contract and explain that you won't renew the arrangement.

You do not need to go through a disciplinary process or even provide reasons for ending the arrangement (unless of course, you have agreed to).

Only an employee can challenge a dismissal by raising a personal grievance with you. So the only way your hairdresser could challenge your decision to end the arrangement is to first demonstrate that she is an employee. She would have to seek a "determination" from the Employment Authority on whether, in spite of her "label" as a self-employed person she was, in reality, an employee.

The Authority might decide that she is an employee if it finds that, in reality, her working arrangement with you was more like an employment relationship than a contractor/principal relationship.

In making its decision the Authority may take into account the following factors:

* The control you have over her hours and the way she performs her work (the more control you have, the more likely she will be considered an employee). So, for example, if she is required to get your approval before taking leave from work, this would indicate you have a degree of control over her hours of work and she would be more likely to be viewed by the Authority as an employee.

* The way you pay her. You mentioned that she receives 50 per cent of the takings, which indicates she is self-employed (I assume the other 50 per cent goes to the 'rent' for the 'chair'). If she was paid wages or salary, she would more likely be considered an employee.

* Who provides her tools and equipment? If she provides her own scissors, etc, she is more likely to be considered a contractor than an employee.

* Industry norms e.g. if hairdressers often work on a "rent a chair" basis, this may influence the Authority that she is a contractor. I understand this is a common arrangement in the industry so this will support her status as contractor.

* Any written terms between you and the hairdresser that define the relationship.

* The degree to which she is integrated into the salon; i.e. how central her role is to the running of the salon.

* If she has a management/supervisory role at the salon she would more likely be considered an employee than a contractor.

From the information you have provided in your question, it would be unlikely the Authority would find your the hairdresser in question was an employee. So, your hairdresser's chances of bringing a successful employment claim against you are slim.

* Kate Hoyle is a lawyer in the employment team of the transtasman law firm, Phillips Fox.