Can Your Employer Prohibit Wearing Shorts or Blue Jeans to Work?
Whether your employer can implement a dress code prohibiting wearing shorts or blue jeans to work is dependant on a number of factors including whether the prohibition serves a legitimate business purpose. The onus is on the employer to justify the rule. A recent arbitration decision in which a workplace attire rule was not successfully grieved by the union demonstrates.
In Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1767 v British Columbia Assessment Authority the union grieved a workplace attire rule that prohibited wearing short pants and blue jeans. The company involved conducted real property assessments for tax purposes. Standards for attire varied significantly between offices but as a general rule, offices in more rural centers wore more relaxed attire and offices in urban centers were more conservative and traditionally professional. Following the amalgamation of three offices a dispute arose regarding the dress code.
In determining the rule was improper, the arbitrator evaluated the rule based on the following criteria:
(1) the rule must be consistent with the collective agreement;
(2) the rule must be reasonable;
(3) the rule must be clear and unequivocal;
(4) the rule must be brought to the attention of the employee affected before the employer acted on it; and
(5) the rule must be consistently enforced since its introduction. If the discipline for breach of the rule is discharge, then the employee must have been notified that a breach of the rule could result in discharge.
Additionally, the reasonableness of the rule involves balancing the business interest of the employer and the rights of the employee.
The arbitrator noted that the employer failed to adduce any objective evidence that the employee's appearance has resulted in a threat to the image and consequential financial loss or that, on a balance of probabilities, the employee's appearance threatens a loss of business to the employer. There was no evidence of any customer complaint or adverse business impact. Rather, the employer was substituting it's judgement of what was professional attire for the judgment of the employees.
The Lesson for Employers: Before implementing any workplace rule consider whether the rule serves a legitimate business purpose or whether it is merely an attempt to implement one's own tastes. Perceptions of what looks professional changes over time. For example, the longer hair and sideburns of the 1960s and 1970s replaced the crew cuts of the 1950s. A workplace policy that attempts to remake employee's in the employer's image is unlikely to be upheld.
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1767 v British Columbia Assessment Authority, 2015 CanLII 40716 http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcla/doc/2015/2015canlii40716/2015canlii40716.pdf
The content and the opinions expressed here is informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Nor does reading or commenting on it create a lawyer/client relationship with the author. I encourage you to contact me directly at adrianlawoffice@gmail.com if you have specific legal questions or concerns.
The author encourages you to share this article on social media.