Hairdresser Keely Alister’s lawsuit against UVA salon Prahran thrown out of court

A hairdresser who sued a Prahran salon frequented by Bec Judd and Nadia Bartel claimed she suffered chronic wrist pain from her work.

Hairdresser Keely Alister launched civil action against UVA Salon after suffering chronic pain in her right wrist. Picture: Instagram

A celebrity hairdresser seeking compensation from her “sweatshop” high-end salon over a debilitating wrist injury has had her lawsuit thrown out of court.

Keely Alister, 25, launched civil action against UVA Salon — known for looking after the locks of Melbourne personalities including ex-AFL WAGs Bec Judd and Nadia Bartel — after suffering chronic pain in her right wrist from repetitive cutting, colouring and styling.

Her condition became so crippling in the months leading up to October 2017 that she would drop her hairdryer while styling client’s hair.

She later required three surgeries, before being told by doctors in November 2019 that she would have to give up her dream career.

Celebrity hairdresser Marie Uva (bottom left) has multiple famous clients at her Prahran salon. Picture: Instagram

Ms Alister, during a County Court trial last year, blamed her injury on a “toxic” and stressful work environment at the Prahran salon in which she would be scheduled to do back-to-back 45-minute appointments without a break.

She also did after hours work to promote the salon, sometimes without pay, styling the hair of models and influencers for major events for David Jones and the NGV Gala, as well as for photo shoots for Dolci Firme and Judd’s Jaggad fashion brand.

The young woman said the salon’s founder and manager, hair stylist to the stars Marie Uva, responded to her injury as an “uncaring bully”.

Three former hairdressers from the high-end salon backed Ms Alister’s claims, testifying that it was an “anxious workplace … long hours, limited breaks, very stressful” with a “not great” culture.

“Sometimes I would consider it to be like a sweatshop,” one stylist told the court.

Ms Uva, when giving evidence at the trial, denied allegations she had an intimidating management style.

Hairdresser Keely Alister (right) alleged the salon was a ‘toxic’ workplace.

Despite admitting the nature and repetitiveness of Ms Alister’s duties contributed to her injury, Ms Uva denied any negligence or breach of duty of care.

The court heard Ms Alister had been taught safe practices of work, including posture, sitting height, cutting techniques and tool use, during her training.

Ms Uva described Ms Alister as “one of her best employees” and claimed she did “everything” to support her when her injury arose.

“I offered her a reception role, I even offered her a team leader role, we spoke about her doing an education role, she was part of the salon family,” Ms Uva said.

UVA salon owner Marie Uva denied allegations she had an intimidating management style. Picture: Jason Edwards

But she said Ms Alister only wanted to be a hairdresser as “that was what she loved to do”.

Judge Caitlin English on Wednesday dismissed Ms Alister’s claim, saying she was not persuaded UVA Salon, which was named the 2018 Australian Salon of the Year, had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace.

She said there was no medical evidence Ms Alister’s injury would have been prevented if more breaks and longer appointments were in place.

“Ms Alister’s claim is that her injury was caused by overwork and lack of breaks which took a physical toll on her wrist,” Judge English said.

“There is a hint of retro-fitting the evidence about these workplace practices in the context of the claim.”

Judge English found Ms Alister never complained about the inadequacy of the 45-minute appointment times, and that the out of salon work was not compulsory.

“The evidence was clear that the out of salon work was coveted by salon staff, despite it being variable as to whether the work was paid or not,” Judge English said.

“In my view, Ms Alister accepted this work because she wanted to do it and enjoyed it.

“I do not accept the additional hours from this work is evidence of an unsafe work practice or an unsafe workplace.”

However, Judge English did find the salon had not complied with return-to-work doctor certificates requiring Ms Alister be on limited duties when she attempted to return to work after her first surgery in 2018.

“I do not accept Ms Uva’s evidence there was no pressure on Ms Alister to service clients when she returned to work,” Judge English said.

But she said there was no evidence that work “exacerbated or worsened or caused a deterioration to her original condition”.