Compensation for hairdresser terminated after ‘toxic’ relationship breakdown

The Fair Work Commission has found no valid reason for dismissal after an employee at hairdressing franchise Toni & Guy claimed to have been fired for not answering emails during a period of sick leave.

The employer at Toni & Guy, and respondent to the unfair dismissal application, was determined to have misused “abandonment of employment” as a reason for termination.

Working at the Sydney city location since 2 November 2022, the applicant had been in a personal relationship with the owner and sole director of the respondent, which ended in late 2023.

This relationship was characterised as “unhealthy” by the respondent, and “volatile” by the applicant, and had seen police involvement.

The applicant claimed to have experienced bullying by the location’s director, with their new partner similarly providing evidence that they saw the owner speak to the applicant in a “harsh, belittling and dismissive” manner. In opposition, the respondent alleged they had been informed of poor and mocking language directed at them.

The respondent further alleged the applicant had engaged in unprofessional behaviour towards an apprentice on 20 October 2024, with another colleague claiming they had heard the applicant use derogatory language and display inappropriate behaviour.

According to this colleague, the applicant’s new partner claimed that in late November 2024, they had been assaulted. The colleague later alleged to have received a text from the applicant, in which the applicant claimed the conduct was a mistake and requested that they not inform anyone.

This colleague later halted contact with the applicant.

Further allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the applicant were made by this colleague, with the sole director alleging the salon became increasingly tense due to the applicant’s reaction to a welfare check on the new partner by Toni & Guy Australia (TGA).

A formal warning was sent to the applicant on 17 December 2024 due to an allegation of “consistent instances of intimidation, bullying, and name-calling … reportedly connected to a matter that occurred outside of work hours”.

The conduct allegedly escalated over the months.

The sole director then held a disciplinary meeting with the applicant on 24 July 2025, who received their second formal warning due to allegations of bullying.

This warning included an explanation that the TGA’s internal investigation had found the applicant had continued to engage in conduct “reasonably perceived as bullying and intimidation” and that “despite a previous warning, no meaningful behaviour improvement had been demonstrated”.

The applicant denied the allegations on both occasions.

Allegations continued during this period, with the applicant then taking personal leave in mid-August. A medical certificate was first provided for the period of 16 to 23 August 2025, with a second claiming they were unfit for work between 25 and 30 August 2025.

According to the sole director, the applicant’s ongoing employment was already under deliberation, with termination paperwork allegedly prepared for submission when the applicant returned.

Allegedly expecting the applicant to return to work in early September, the respondent sent a series of emails to the applicant, but later conceded the applicant had sent a medical certificate to cover the absence until 23 September 2025.

However, the applicant was informed in early September that they were being charged with common assault due to an incident involving the respondent in 2021. While they denied the allegation, the applicant consented to an apprehended violence order (AVO).

According to the applicant, a text message on 11 September from a client informed them they would not be able to return to the salon, with the respondent allegedly stating a day later: “Check your emails, you’ve been dismissed.”

The same day, the respondent allegedly contacted the applicant’s Gmail address, stating they had previously sent formal warning emails to a Hotmail address.

Forwarded emails allegedly included an email dated 4 September that claimed the applicant’s request for personal leave had expired, a follow-up on 8 September, and another from 9 September explaining the alleged absence of a medical certificate or justification for absence warranted termination due to employment abandonment.

According to commissioner Alana Matheson, the first consideration to be determined was whether there was a valid reason for dismissal related to the applicant’s capacity or conduct.

While the respondent allegedly terminated the applicant based on the understanding that they had abandoned employment, and that a rejected workers’ compensation claim invalidated the medical certificate, this understanding was not true, and there was therefore no valid reason for dismissal.

Further, the respondent allegedly believed they expected the applicant to return earlier for financial reasons because the applicant did not have enough sick leave for paid leave during the period of absence.

The use of professional and personal email addresses was also examined, with Matheson stating that the respondent allegedly forwarded the allegations to a personal email address “because she was hoping the applicant would not respond” and therefore would give a sound basis for dismissal on the grounds of abandonment.

Regarding the respondent’s claim that the location’s size and resources meant they were impacted in the dismissal procedures it followed, Matheson claimed the respondent was “opportunistic in acting on an incorrect assumption of abandonment because not having the applicant in a small workplace where people work together closely was a means of dealing with the interpersonal conflict in that workplace”.

Matheson said: “The abrupt nature of the dismissal, on an incorrect premise, is also a relevant factor and weighs in favour of finding a harness.”

The dismissal was therefore classified as harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. Although reinstatement was considered inappropriate, a payment of $1,415.25 was ordered to be completed within 21 days of the decision.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.