A dermal therapist to the stars has lost a claim that she was unlawfully dismissed by a well-known cosmetic clinic in the eastern suburbs.

Lacey Lopez, who boasts a following of 11,000 on Instagram, took One Cosmetic in Double Bay to the Fair Work Commission in March.

A skin specialist with 13 years' industry experience, Lopez also runs a consulting business offering one-on-one mentoring to prospective business owners looking to enter the aesthetic field. 

One Cosmetic caters to the upper echelon of Sydney, offering everything from bespoke breast augmentation and liposuction to an extensive array of non-surgical skincare and cosmetic treatments. 

The clinic is run by husband-and-wife duo Dr Louis Wessels and Nathalie Wessels, and is often touted as one of the city's leading cosmetic surgery clinics. 

In a decision published this week, the FWC threw out Lopez's dismissal claim after finding that she was an independent contractor, not an employee.

Lopez was contracted at One Cosmetic for more than three years. She provided its clientele with HydraFacials, cosmetic lasers and body sculpting.

According to the FWC decision, Lopez's contract allowed her to use services and facilities of the Double Bay clinic, including specialised equipment for machine-based facials and body sculpting and cosmetic lasers, for a fee.

At the same time, Lopez was permitted to undertake work with other clinics and businesses, provided there was no conflict of interest.

However, Lopez said she did not operate any independent enterprise outside of One Cosmetic, and told the Commission that her income was dependent on the clinic.

In her evidence to the FWC, Lopez said she was 'fully integrated' into One Cosmetic's operations and was 'presented publicly' as part of the clinic through its website, social media and publicity material. She also had a clinic email address. 

She further said that she did not have independent control over her client list, nor was she permitted to independently contact or retain clients, and that any request to take leave, or change her availability and hours required management approval. 

According to her evidence, the clients Lopez saw were 'treated as clients of the clinic' with bookings and payments being made directly to One Cosmetic, not herself.

Practice manager Nathalie Wessels said there was 'no impediment' to Lopez working with other clinics or promoting her own business, Space Skin & Aesthetics, which she would do when performing treatments at One Cosmetic, the FWC heard.

Additionally, Ms Wessels stated that in March last year, Lopez had contacted a Melbourne-based clinic using her One Cosmetic email address to seek a collaboration.

The FWC was also shown screenshots, provided by Ms Wessels, of Lopez promoting her business and personal skincare brand 'laceylopez.skin' on LinkedIn and Instagram.

Ms Wessels said Lopez would create client treatment plans 'at her own discretion' and that One Cosmetic 'exercised no control' over the treatments she chose for clients.

Ms Wessels further said she had recently become aware that Lopez had been giving clients 'personalised discount codes' for skincare brands not sold by One Cosmetic, which she would then receive commissions for. 

Under cross-examination, Lopez agreed that she wanted to work as an independent contractor rather than an employee on an hourly rate.

Specifically, Lopez had requested that her pay be scaled to receive a percentage of what her clients paid the clinic.

In a December 2022 email provided to the FWC, Lopez wrote: 'I had a think and having my pay scaled will be really motivating for me, please would love any input. on average I can bill 3 to 6k a day.'

Under her contract, Lopez paid the clinic a service fee calculated as 50 per cent of daily net profit where billings were up to $4,999, and 40 per cent where billings exceeded $5,000, plus GST, retaining the remainder as her income.

Ultimately, the FWC sided with One Cosmetic, finding she was an independent contractor of One Cosmetic rather than an employee.

In its decision, the FWC took into account that Lopez was liable for 50 per cent of client refunds, was responsible for her own tax and insurance, and did not receive superannuation or sick leave from One Cosmetic.