|
Must I abide by the employer's dress code?
These questions come up from time to time – where an employee refuses to adhere to the employer's dress code on various grounds – the most common seems to be that "it is against my culture."
Firstly, let us make it clear that "culture" has no place in the work situation, and employers cannot be expected to make provision in its company policies to accommodate every one of the dozens of cultures that exist in our country.
Generally, employers are entitled – or certainly not prohibited – from introducing company policy in respect of clothing and grooming that the employer requires of his employees in his workplace. This can be for many reasons – identification of the company in public places, projecting a certain corporate image both on and off the workplace, uniformity of appearance, and so on.
A dress code might also contain special provisions in respect of the personal safety of the employee – very long hair, for example, or long beards, might be prohibited on safety grounds. It has been shown that the courts are not keen to interfere with a company's dress and grooming codes.
It seems that provided the employers dress code finds "some justification in commonly accepted socialnorms" and is " reasonably related to the employers business needs", the courts will not interfere, (Carroll v Talman Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago.)
The courts have recognized that "the appearance of a company's employees may greatly contribute to the company's success with the public, and a reasonable dress or grooming code is "therefore a proper management prerogative."
Such codes would only be considered to be discriminatory if the employer imposes dress or grooming codes on one group of employees only, or imposes stricter more rigid requirements on one group only – such as requiring only female employees to wear a uniform, and not male employees.
However, the operational requirements of the business would play a big part in such decisions. For example, in a mining operation, it would be ridiculous to expect office staff to wear gumboots, overalls, hardhats and ear and eye protection in the office – but this is imposed on staff working underground or elsewhere on the mine property.
Different dress requirements for both female and male employees performing the same functions would – usually but not always - be seen as discriminatory. In one case, female tellers, and female office and female managerial employees were required to wear a certain uniform – whereas male employees in those positions were required only to wear "customary business attire."
The court noted that while there is nothing demeaning about wearing a uniform, problems can arise when the requirement does not extend to all employees performing the same function. Employers are not prohibited from introducing a dress or grooming code, but a big consideration is that employees should be informed of these requirements at the interview stage – and the employee should provide written agreement that he/she does not have a problem with the dress code, have no objections to it on any grounds, and will comply with it should the application be successful.
Whatever the case, make sure your dress and grooming code is reasonable, fair and lawful, and non-discriminatory. The other argument regarding dress codes is the question of "who pays for these special dress or grooming requirements?" In my view, the employer should pay – it is his requirement and he cannot expect employees to lash out what may be thousands of rands on special dress requirements simply because the employer requires it.
The same sort of principle that applies to safety clothing and PPE – the employer must provide it at his own expense. There is nothing to stop the employer negotiating a "cost agreement" with the employee.
For further information contact
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
