<– Use the green share button to send this article to your customers
What counts as appropriate clothing in the workplace is a matter of debate, and one that must be approached sensitively, given that some clothing, jewellery and other items have religious significance for their wearer. Dress code rules must also be flexible enough to adapt as the seasons change, especially as we experience more periods of hot weather. Here, Stacie Cheadle, Croner-i Technical Writer, looks at the rules on setting rules on dress codes in the workplace and what employers need to think about.
My client has several showrooms selling our products that are open to the public. They have a strict dress code: all male employees must wear a suit and smart shoes, and women must be dressed smartly. As the weather warms up, they’ve started to have complaints. The men in the office have asked to wear sandals and shorts, as the women are allowed to wear sandals and skirts. My client says on men, these are “not smart”. Is there anything they need to think about?
For the most part, employers are free to set whatever dress code they choose for their employees. Typically, smart or casual business dress is the norm – although how this is interpreted in any given workplace can vary. A well-thought-out dress code can be a great boost to your client’s business image and make it stand out from the competition, but your client must take care that their dress code does not discriminate.
In this case, there is a risk of the employees arguing that the dress code is indirectly discriminatory. This is where a provision, criterion or practice puts, or would put, a group of people of one protected group at a particular disadvantage compared to others who are not in that group. This disadvantage can be justified (ie the employer can defend it) but only if it can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In this case, the men could argue that they are disadvantaged by the dress code as women are able to wear clothing that is more comfortable in hot weather whilst still meeting my clients view of “smart”.
In Department of Work and Pensions v Thomson, a male employee objected to having to wear a collar and tie when women had to ‘dress appropriately and to a similar standard’. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said the test was whether the rules required a similar level of smartness for men and women. If they did, then there was no discrimination. If men therefore could achieve the required level of smartness without wearing a collar and tie, then the lack of flexibility in the dress code could be discrimination. Your client should therefore discuss with their staff what other options there are for the men to still be “smart”, as it may be that a wider variety of clothing for men is available than the traditional suit.
This seems like a good time for your client to review their dress code. It should clearly set out the standards expected of employees when at their place of work and while they are representing the organisation visiting third parties outside the business, and it should set expectations that are reasonable given the employees’ working environment and the nature of the business. They should consider the input of their employees, and whether their expectations need to be changed.
