What are the laws relating to a workplace dress code?

Employers understandably want their employees to look smart and presentable while at work, However, what employers want and can enforce may be two different things – the law has much to say on the subject of workplace dress codes, warns Mark Stevens is a solicitor at Veale Wasbrough Vizards. How to implement a dress code For those employers wishing to implement a dress code, the most effective way to do so is by including a dress-code policy in the staff handbook setting out the employer's policy on appearance and dress at work. The amount of detail required will change from employer to employer and will depend upon the nature of the employer's business, the extent of customer contact, the extent to which there are health and safety hazards at work and any requirement to wear a uniform. Typically, the policy will set out what clothes and footwear employee should wear (and what they should not) and draw their attention to any health and safety considerations. To carry more weight, a dress code policy should include an explanation of the purpose or reason for the policy. Some reasons behind an employer wanting a dress code are that they may wish to promote a positive image, ensure that staff look professional, take account of health and safety requirements and to help staff decide what clothing is appropriate to wear to work. Is it permissible to have different rules for men and women? As might be expected, the code should not be more stringent for one group than another. This principle was the subject of a case involving a male employee working at a Safeway delicatessen counter. He was dismissed because his long hair contravened Safeway's dress code. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the imposition of the dress code was not discriminatory in the circumstances of this case. Although the dress code operated by Safeway meant that the particular rules applied to men and women were different, the overall effect was broadly the same - to ensure conventionality in appearance. In light of this the dress code was not discriminatory, as both sexes were equally required to dress in a conventional way. A dress code requiring men to wear a collar and tie and women to "dress appropriately and to a similar standard" was challenged in another case by a male employee who argued that the rule was discriminatory. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found in the employer's favour, saying that the correct question to ask was whether the level of smartness that the employer required could only be achieved for men by requiring them to wear a collar and tie. If it could be achieved by other means then the lack of flexibility for men may mean that men were being treated less favourably than their female comparators. What about religious dress? The manifestation of religious beliefs should always be considered when drafting appropriate dress codes. This will mean the employer thinking about how staff can wear religious or cultural dress, including head scarves, turbans and skull caps, alongside their uniform. If a dress code requires someone to remove an item of clothing, and this requirement is challenged, the discriminatory impact of this requirement will need to be justified. The well-known case of Eweida and British Airways related to BA's implementation of a dress code that required check in staff to remove any jewellery over their uniform worn without express authorisation to do so. Ms Eweida, a Christian, argued that the requirement for her to remove her crucifix, violated her freedom to manifest her religious belief under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finding in her favour, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that BA's argument that it had a corporate image to preserve did not justify their prevention of an employee from manifesting their religious belief (at least where done discreetly). However, employers should note that in a similar case the ECHR accepted a justification argument where the removal of a crucifix in a hospital context was required on health and safety grounds. This means that if an employer has a genuine health and safety reason for preventing the manifestation of a religious right, the justification argument could succeed. Enforcing the rules Employers finding fault with an individuals dress may, in the first instance, find it worth raising any issue or concerns informally. Some employees may feel affronted as a result of any perceived criticism of what they are wearing or how they look - so it is sensible to raise concerns in a sensitive way, and privately. In many cases simply referring an employee to the dress code may be sufficient. For serious issues, or continued failures to comply with the dress code, the employer should deal with the issue as it would any other disciplinary matter by investigating the issues, arranging a hearing and then deciding upon an appropriate sanction. At its most serious, a continued failure to comply with a dress code could amount to a failure to follow a reasonable instruction and may justify formal warnings, and potentially dismissal, depending on the circumstances and nature of the job.