By Floyd Graham
FG Solicitors
SOME of us are old enough to remember the striking bright red Virgin Atlantic work uniforms and, even closer to home, the Barclaycard uniform, a more subtle but no less striking blue. Anyone who owns or manages a business will understand the importance of brand identity, easily remembered symbols that supplement the marketing effort and trigger brand recognition.
If your business has a public face, workplace dress is likely to acquire more significance than those businesses that trade online. The ubiquitous work uniform is multifunctional and even where it is not enforced by managerial rigour, most, if not all, employers will have a subconscious idea of the dress standard they wish to see employees adopt.
If only it was that simple! Employers wishing to retain any form of dress code are now required to surmount a heady mixture of individual choice, personal and religious expression and now legislation which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion and disability.
Some points to note: dress codes can be defined and enforced through provisions in employees’ or workers’ contracts. If the aim is to achieve a professional look or create brand/team identity, care must be taken to consult with employees to achieve buy in. Dress codes for male and female employees do not have to be identical but the standards should be equivalent.
It is highly likely that a requirement for female staff to wear high heels, revealing clothing and makeup will amount to a discriminatory practice unless it can be shown that there are equivalent rules for male staff. In that sense, it is advisable to avoid gender specific prescriptive requirements but perfectly acceptable to define smart appearance that is gender neutral. Apart from potential discrimination claims employers also need to consider their health and safety obligations to provide a safe work environment, this includes appropriate footwear and unrestrictive clothing. Also, their obligation to employees suffering from some form of physical disability where reasonable adjustment to the dress code may have to be made.
Over recent years employers’ approach to the wearing of religious symbols in the workplace has provided fertile ground for legal claims. While a total ban on the wearing of religious symbols is unlikely to give rise to a claim that the complaining employee is being treated less favourably than someone not of that religion, employers should consider adopting a more flexible approach to the wearing of religious symbols where they do not interfere with an employee’s work.
If an employer’s definition of smart is that it does not have to be in good taste but mustn’t be in poor taste, such a definition fairly bristles with imponderables and will require consultation to achieve universal acceptance of what ‘smart’ actually means.
The Government Equalities Office has published some useful guidance on dress codes and sex discrimination which can be found on its website. Further guidance may also be obtained from a member of the FG Solicitors team on 01604 871143 or at www.fgsolicitors.co.uk
