The legality and enforceability of policies that attempt to regulate a person’s appearance have recently garnered much media attention. Recent headlines have focused on dress codes in the public school system; however, much of the discussion applies to similar policies in the workplace. The burning question in the minds of many employers is: can I regulate the appearance of my employees in my workplace? The answer, of course, is dependent on a number of factors.
Workplace policies may attempt to regulate appearance in many ways, from requiring employees to wear a uniform, implementing a dress code, regulating personal grooming, and/or prohibiting visible body piercings and/or tattoos.
In a unionized workplace, an employer’s policy must satisfy the following criteria:
More often than not, the determining factor in assessing whether a workplace policy that regulates the appearance of employees is valid is whether the employer can establish that the policy is reasonable. The employer must be able to satisfy an arbitrator that there is a justifiable business reason for the policy. For example, a restaurant that has a policy requiring hair be tied back and beards be kept to a particular length will likely be considered justified, and thus found to be reasonable, on the basis of health and safety concerns. The same policy would likely be unreasonable if applied in an office setting.
In a non-unionized workplace, these restrictions do not apply. An employer does not have to prove the “reasonableness” of their policies. They do, however, need to consider whether their policies are compliant with applicable legislation.
Both unionized and non-unionized employers must ensure that workplace appearance policies are in compliance with applicable human rights legislation.
A workplace policy that imposes restrictions on an employee’s appearance in the workplace may be discriminatory if it creates a distinction on the basis of a ground that is protected by human rights legislation. For example, a dress code that prohibits women from wearing leggings to work is, on its face, discriminatory on the basis of sex. However, a policy that requires all employees to dress professionally in the workplace is not, on its face, discriminatory.
Furthermore, a policy may not appear to be discriminatory but may nonetheless result in adverse discrimination. For example, if a policy prohibits visible tattoos and an employee has a visible tattoo that is part, or symbolic, of the employee’s culture and/or religious belief. In such circumstances, an employer may be required to accommodate the employee. Whether accommodation is required, and what might constitute reasonable accommodation, is always assessed on an individual basis.
Another factor for employers to consider is whether the workplace appearance policy is an infringement on the employee’s right to freedom of expression, which is protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). If a policy interferes with an employee’s right to freedom of expression, it may still be justifiable if the underlying objective of the policy is serious and valid and if the interference with the employee’s right to freedom of expression is found to be proportional to the objective.
Interference with the right to freedom of expression is only a relevant factor considered for public sector employers. It is not a factor for consideration for private employers.
In a non-unionized workplace, there are few restrictions to an employer’s ability to impose a workplace policy that regulates the appearance of employees in the workplace. An employer may have such a policy so long as the policy does not discriminate against employees on the basis of a ground that is protected by human rights legislation.
In a unionized workplace, an employer must be able to establish that a policy which regulates the appearance of employees is “reasonable”. What is reasonable is an assessment that is made on the facts of each circumstance.
An additional factor to be considered for public sector employers is whether such a policy interferes with an employee’s right to freedom of expression.
Introducing and implementing workplace appearance policies can raise legal issues. Employers should consult with legal counsel to ensure that their policy is in compliance with the law.
Written by Maggie Hughes, Associate and Kaylee Campbell, Articled Clerk Workplace policies are a helpful tool to provide employees with clear expectations. This may include setting parameters around expected employee conduct or outlining procedures to streamline processes. While there are a wide range of policies that any one organization may implement, it is important to […]
read moreWritten by Ben Ladner Once your corporation is established, it is important to take the necessary steps to set a solid foundation. This checklist outlines essential post-incorporation tasks, from tax filings to corporate governance, to help you navigate the next phase of your business journey. Read more: Post-Incorporation Checklist: Essential Next Steps
read moreWritten by F. Richard Gosse. Background The concept is not new – parties committing to provide work or services decide to write down what each expects of the other: a scope of work, a mechanism for payment, some general provision for timelines, changes, and warranties or the like. More sophisticated engagements may (or may not) […]
read more
