7 minute read
Editor-At-large
WHAT TO wear
WHAT NOT TO wear
THAT’S THE
QUESTION!
By Neil Archibald
It can be a touchy subject. What suits one organisation will not do for another when it comes to what staff can and can’t wear to work.
The US TV programme ‘Suits’ had the beautiful people turned out in their best bib and tucker with not a crease to be seen. Maybe the fact that this formal, workwear culture not being synonymous with the majority of modern workplaces affected Meghan Markle, one of the show’s former stars. After eschewing her acting career, it’s now a well-documented fact she has gone on to reject more formality by embracing a much less formal life with Harry and Archie!
So, formality aside, what of the casual, dress-down ethos that seems to pervade most workplaces? Is it a widespread phenomenon, a flash in the pan or a concept of the workplace which is here to stay? Are there any legal pitfalls?
Brodies is a progressive, 3-office, 700+ employee strong Scottish law firm. The partners and HR have worked hard to bring about cultural change to the firm in order “to recognise and celebrate our firm’s heritage but not be shackled by tradition” and “to encourage colleagues to work in a more agile way, to recognise their authenticity and to encourage them to bring themselves to work.”
The words of Tony Hadden, Head of Employment and Immigration at the firm, who reports that a strand of this work has been the recent introduction of a new dresscode practice called ‘dress for your day’.
He said: “We realised that various parts of the business were doing different things in relation to what was expected of our colleagues in terms of work attire so this initiative was designed, in part, to provide clarity on the subject.”
The firm’s employee forum had already tabled a request to relax the dress code which coincided with various cultured-focused initiatives across the business so the issue was already high up on the agenda. The firm’s management team ensured collaboration was the order
of the day from the very beginning while recognising some people may not want to move to a casual dress code.
Another tactic to develop and underpin these changes was ensuring consistency of message so that one office didn’t interpret the policy differently from another. So, for example, if there is a requirement to attend court, colleagues are expected to wear formal business dress to reflect the environment they’re operating in.
In Hadden’s case he has encouraged his team to reflect the dress code of their clients for some time now. He added: “I have never had a negative comment from a client about not wearing a tie. My team and I interface mainly with HR professionals who have, for a long time, adopted a business casual approach so it seemed fitting that we, as their legal advisers, reflect this and do likewise.”
An accompanying policy has been developed to provide guidance on the subject but everyone is expected to ‘dress for their day taking account of individual circumstances.’ This has been supported by colleagues appearing in videos to help understand what is acceptable or not to wear to work such as no football tops or flip-flops.
Hadden comments: “The new policy is permissive rather than prescriptive” which he feels is why the change has been universally embraced by colleagues. When it comes to Hadden providing advice and guidance to clients on the legal angles to having a workplace dress-code, he advises caution: “Adopting a common sense approach to such an issue is paramount with a particular focus on ensuring no aspects of the practice can be interpreted as discriminatory.”
This aspect is often a reason workplace dress-codes fail at the first hurdle. This can happen when statements made are seen as being unfair to one particular group such as saying men must be smartly dressed but with no reference to the female workforce. Conversely, mentioning that women must wear make-up, high heels or dictating what length a skirt must be could be viewed as discriminatory.
Given these potential issues, as part of his team’s advice, Hadden advocates against any policy or practice being too prescriptive and suggests: “The secret to ensuring the success of a workplace dress-code and associated policy is having a clear understanding of what it is trying to achieve and writing the text around that.”
This though can depend on a multitude of factors. The industry an organisation works in, whether a certain kind of image is trying to be projected, whether uniforms are mandatory or not as well as taking account of whether staff’s religious beliefs affect what they can wear to work. All of these must factor into the thinking and planning of workwear practices and policies. In such instances, advises Hadden: “It is important to be aware of the subtleties of policy wording so no-one can take offence or more seriously instigate legal action.”
Other issues to be cognisant of are the implications of implementing elements of a code that go further than saying what workers can and can’t wear. This could, for example, refer to staff not being allowed to display tattoos. This may exclude an important demographic of the population to be recruited from such as younger people not being keen to work in, for example, a call centre that insists on such rules.
In such instances, suggests Hadden: “It is important to take account of the fact that dress-codes should be representative of the society we are working in”. Involving workers and, if necessary, unions in such decisions is important to ensure the success or otherwise of such projects. The questions are endless in terms of introducing a dress-code policy. However, turning to the likes of ACAS for guidance might leave organisations with an even bigger headache when faced with such guidelines as ‘dress-code standards should be equivalent to all, should be non-discriminatory but equivalent for men and women”. Undress that if you will to make sense of it!
