Hairdresser dismissed for running salon that wasn’t hers

A salon hairdresser and supervisor had her unfair dismissal application quashed by the Fair Work Commission after she outstayed her welcome.

Scott Connolly, commissioner with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), ruled that a salon hairdresser and supervisor was fairly dismissed after she continued to work past her notice period while her employer was out of town.

Gemma Empenado Asmolo, who commenced work as a salon supervisor and hairdresser at Hairy Hairdressers in Armadale, Melbourne, in April 2022, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy application on 26 April 2025, after she was terminated by the salon’s owner, Charuni Vidyapathi, on 7 April 2025.

‘Abuse’ and ‘aggression’

During the hearing, Asmolo alleged that Vidyapathi owed her a “significant amount of money for unpaid wages, annual leave and other entitlements”.

Asmolo claimed that she had not been “provided with payslips, paid overtime, provided access to paid annual leave or paid her superannuation entitlements correctly”.

After raising these concerns with Vidyapathi, without resolution, Asmolo recalled submitting reports to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the FWC, reporting her employer’s behaviour.

Following the submission of these reports, Asmolo gave evidence that she allegedly copped “abuse” and “aggression” from her employer, who subsequently reduced her working hours and the trading hours of the salon “as acts of retaliation and intimidation against her”, the commission heard.

‘Unsolicited’ correspondence

On 7 April 2025, Asmolo submitted that she received an “unsolicited email and text message” from her employer containing a sales proposal for the salon.

Vidyapathi told the commission that the salon was underperforming, so she wanted to sell Asmolo the salon to reduce operating costs, which included the termination of Asmolo’s employment.

This text message read: “Hi Gemma, yes, since you want to go with the contract, I will give you two months’ notice which includes the termination notice beginning from April 7th.”

In response to this proposal, Asmolo submitted that she was not interested and incapable of buying the salon for $50,000 and “simply wanted to be paid their full legal entitlements”.

“When Ms Asmolo indicated she was not interested in buying the salon, Vidyapathi confirmed her decision to the applicant, that she intended to terminate her employment,” the commissioner said.

Asmolo told the commission that she was significantly impacted by this proposal, her health was seriously impacted, and it placed her under “enormous stress”.

She added that she could not afford to lose the $69,000 in underpayments that she claimed she was owed by Vidyapathi.

A ‘personal reasons’ holiday

Vidyapathi submitted to the commission that she had travelled to Sri Lanka not long after this time for “personal reasons”, with the understanding that Asmolo’s employment would be terminated as of 14 June 2025.

Asmolo told the commission that she was fearful that Vidyapathi would never return from Sri Lanka, or would close the salon. Prior to leaving for Sri Lanka, Vidyapathi removed the business EFTPOS machine from the salon.

With the perceived obligation to “save” the salon, Asmolo continued to do client work for cash payments past her notice period at the business’s location.

A new employment relationship

Vidyapathi returned to Australia on 7 July 2025 to “resolve things”, telling Asmolo to keep the cash payments that she had earned when she was away.

Vidyapathi told the commission that, upon her return and after installing the EFTPOS machine, she had the salon “back up and running” and began paying Asmolo weekly for her work electronically again by 24 July 2025.

During the hearing, Vidyapathi said that she had been “forced into this position” by Asmolo and her partner, who “demanded” money from her that she “did not owe them”, and by using her salon without her permission when she was away.

Based on the terms and conditions of her employment, Asmolo could be terminated with two months’ notice from either party.

On the basis that Asmolo received notice from Vidyapathi on 7 April 2025, affecting her termination on 14 June 2025, the commissioner was satisfied that the dismissal was valid.

The commissioner found that Asmolo had entered a “new employment relationship” with Vidyapathi upon her arrival back in Australia.

Upon consideration of evidence at the hearing, Connolly found that Asmolo’s termination on 14 June 2025 was not harsh, unjust, unreasonable or unfair, upholding the dismissal.