Knowledge
Knowledge is critical for business and individuals. Just give us your email address and tell us what areas you are interested in and we will deliver knowledge direct to your inbox - timely and tailored legal updates.
Published Articles
Employment
What not to wear ...
Press and Journal
June 2008
It’s not quite knotted hankie and sandals-with-socks territory, but the Scottish summer can rapidly become the season that taste forgot.
As soon as the first weak rays resemble anything remotely like a heatwave – that’s generally double figures for anywhere north of Hadrian’s Wall – the clothes come off and decorum goes out the window.
Bare-chested builders may just about be acceptable on a construction site, but hairy legs, baggy shorts and a comedy shirt in the office is a corporate fashion crime most firms could not condone.
Equally, women in strappy tops and skimpy sundresses can reveal rather too many assets for the boardroom.
So, how can employers ensure that their employees have a clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable when the temperature soars?
According to employment law expert Kim Pattullo, it is all down to laying out the rules well in advance.
“Everyone can fall victim to the occasional fashion faux pas, but inappropriately-dressed employees or those who may be viewed by some as having a wacky or eccentric ‘look’ for work can often cause headaches for employers, especially when staff are client or customer-facing.
“Where people tend to get it badly wrong is when the heat is on, literally. But in seeking to rely on unwritten rules or ad hoc reasoning in raising any disciplinary action, employers could find themselves at the wrong end of an employment tribunal claim."
Ms Pattullo, an employment law specialist with leading UK law firm Shepherd and Wedderburn, says all employers should implement a written appearance and dress code policy of some description, that is well thought out and appropriate to their particular line of business. If that is done, a wide discretion is likely to be afforded to employers to determine what can be worn. The key is to show that attempts have been made to regulate appearance across all employee groups rather than focussed on an item by item comparison. In some cases the dress code requirements will be essential for safety reasons, but in others it is all about projecting the right company image.
While a collar and tie may be desirable for high-flying executives, it may not be appropriate for those who do not have contact with the public, such as those based in call centres where it could be argued that the dress code should be more relaxed.
In a case involving a Job Centre male employee it was claimed that the requirement to wear a collar and tie in order to demonstrate a "professional and business-like image" amounted to sex discrimination. This was on the basis that female employees did not have to wear a collar and tie and therefore had more flexibility in their appearance. Although he was successful in his sex discrimination claim at the employment tribunal and won £1,000 compensation, on appeal it was determined that a dress code does not have to identically apply the same requirements to men and women.
Effectively, rules governing appearance may not be discriminatory if, taken as a whole and applying contemporary standards of appearance, there are restrictions imposed on both men and women. Accordingly, a requirement that male and female staff should dress in a professional and business-like way would not amount to sex discrimination - even where men had to wear a collar and tie and women did not – where there were still restrictions imposed on female employees' appearance too.
Ms Pattullo says: "In every organisation employers need to clearly spell out to their employees the standards expected at work. Depending on the organisation, it can include a ban on things like piercings, ultra-short mini skirts and jeans."
The consequences of not sticking to the rules should also be clearly set out so that employees do not leave themselves open to disciplinary action and so employers have something to point to when instigating any disciplinary action.
In terms of implementing or amending a dress code policy, employers would be well advised to give employees advance notice of the new written policy and details of when it will take effect. Also, employers may wish to consider seeking employee input on the terms of the policy to encourage good employee relations and avoid conflict. Employers should also seek to enforce the policy in a way that is consistent and proportionate.
"The key message," says Ms Pattullo, "is that when employers are setting out the limits they must remember to use their common sense and bear in mind any possible discriminatory practices that may result in expensive claims of unlawful discrimination such as sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. It is hoped that we will not see cases in the future such as an employee undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer raising a claim for not being permitted to wear a wig or headscarf in the workplace, or an older member of staff raising a grievance as the result of a request to dye their hair to adhere to a fresh and youthful company image."
It is also worthwhile for employers to bear in mind the additional management time and possible legal costs that may face them if they do not think about these sorts of issues sooner rather than later. Employers should always seek to balance the legitimate needs of the business with the rights of their employees.
As soon as the first weak rays resemble anything remotely like a heatwave – that’s generally double figures for anywhere north of Hadrian’s Wall – the clothes come off and decorum goes out the window.
Bare-chested builders may just about be acceptable on a construction site, but hairy legs, baggy shorts and a comedy shirt in the office is a corporate fashion crime most firms could not condone.
Equally, women in strappy tops and skimpy sundresses can reveal rather too many assets for the boardroom.
So, how can employers ensure that their employees have a clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable when the temperature soars?
According to employment law expert Kim Pattullo, it is all down to laying out the rules well in advance.
“Everyone can fall victim to the occasional fashion faux pas, but inappropriately-dressed employees or those who may be viewed by some as having a wacky or eccentric ‘look’ for work can often cause headaches for employers, especially when staff are client or customer-facing.
“Where people tend to get it badly wrong is when the heat is on, literally. But in seeking to rely on unwritten rules or ad hoc reasoning in raising any disciplinary action, employers could find themselves at the wrong end of an employment tribunal claim."
Ms Pattullo, an employment law specialist with leading UK law firm Shepherd and Wedderburn, says all employers should implement a written appearance and dress code policy of some description, that is well thought out and appropriate to their particular line of business. If that is done, a wide discretion is likely to be afforded to employers to determine what can be worn. The key is to show that attempts have been made to regulate appearance across all employee groups rather than focussed on an item by item comparison. In some cases the dress code requirements will be essential for safety reasons, but in others it is all about projecting the right company image.
While a collar and tie may be desirable for high-flying executives, it may not be appropriate for those who do not have contact with the public, such as those based in call centres where it could be argued that the dress code should be more relaxed.
In a case involving a Job Centre male employee it was claimed that the requirement to wear a collar and tie in order to demonstrate a "professional and business-like image" amounted to sex discrimination. This was on the basis that female employees did not have to wear a collar and tie and therefore had more flexibility in their appearance. Although he was successful in his sex discrimination claim at the employment tribunal and won £1,000 compensation, on appeal it was determined that a dress code does not have to identically apply the same requirements to men and women.
Effectively, rules governing appearance may not be discriminatory if, taken as a whole and applying contemporary standards of appearance, there are restrictions imposed on both men and women. Accordingly, a requirement that male and female staff should dress in a professional and business-like way would not amount to sex discrimination - even where men had to wear a collar and tie and women did not – where there were still restrictions imposed on female employees' appearance too.
Ms Pattullo says: "In every organisation employers need to clearly spell out to their employees the standards expected at work. Depending on the organisation, it can include a ban on things like piercings, ultra-short mini skirts and jeans."
The consequences of not sticking to the rules should also be clearly set out so that employees do not leave themselves open to disciplinary action and so employers have something to point to when instigating any disciplinary action.
In terms of implementing or amending a dress code policy, employers would be well advised to give employees advance notice of the new written policy and details of when it will take effect. Also, employers may wish to consider seeking employee input on the terms of the policy to encourage good employee relations and avoid conflict. Employers should also seek to enforce the policy in a way that is consistent and proportionate.
"The key message," says Ms Pattullo, "is that when employers are setting out the limits they must remember to use their common sense and bear in mind any possible discriminatory practices that may result in expensive claims of unlawful discrimination such as sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. It is hoped that we will not see cases in the future such as an employee undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer raising a claim for not being permitted to wear a wig or headscarf in the workplace, or an older member of staff raising a grievance as the result of a request to dye their hair to adhere to a fresh and youthful company image."
It is also worthwhile for employers to bear in mind the additional management time and possible legal costs that may face them if they do not think about these sorts of issues sooner rather than later. Employers should always seek to balance the legitimate needs of the business with the rights of their employees.
