Tattoos: expressive or career limiting?

NICOL MYBURGH , HEAD: CRS TECHNOLOGIES HCM BUSINESS UNIT

Then something like full tattoo sleeves could be perceived as unprofessional and detrimental to your company’s perceived credibility.

Ink issues

This is where it gets tricky because people with tattoos often face discrimination. Some have been dismissed, had their roles changed, and struggled to get a promotionbasically, they’ve been judged based on their ink.

This discrimination is often fuelled by misconceptions such as when the Minister of Police Bheki Cele suggested that people with tattoos couldn’t get jobs in the police force because they are more likely to be gangsters, or have gangster tendencies.

It’s bad enough that the protection of an employee’s right to have a tattoo and to protect them against discrimination or unfair judgment is not clearly mandated in the Constitution or the Employment Equity Act, but the courts tend to rule in favor of the employee over the company.

Getting the job

Tattoo discrimination is a real problem in South African organisations, but do organisations have an inkpot to stand on?

Appearance in the workplace is important, but this depends on the industry and company culture. It could also have no/low importance to one employer or be viewed as very important. Unfortunately, some older companies are still stuck in their ways and adhere strictly to a dress code and what they perceive to be an appropriate appearance.

In some industries, it’s justified, for example, if you are in a corporate environment and public-facing, or frequently meet with clients as a representative of your company.

There are, as with all things in labour law, exceptional circumstances that can influence whether or not a court will rule in the company’s favour. As a rule, tattoos fall under the jurisdiction of freedom of expression. Some companies, of course, don’t mind at all if a person is covered in tattoos, but others may find this to be unacceptable in light of the kind of work that the person does. We should bear in mind that there are still old perceptions influencing how customers and patients feel about tattoos and those who wear them.

The Employment Equity Act makes room for freedom of expression. People are protected when it comes to expressing themselves and how they use their bodies – it is also a Constitutional right. So, if an employer impedes that right, then they are actively discriminating against you. However, there is a balance in this situation where, as an employee, you have to act in good faith toward your employer.

So what about someone looking for a job? Applicants need to remember that when applying for a visible role in a company or perhaps a traditionally professionallooking role, having tattoos could realistically limit the chances of getting the role or keeping it. However, if your tattoos can be covered during working hours, there is no reason why a person can’t take on such roles even if they are inked all over. If customers can’t see the tattoos, then it’s absolutely fine. This understanding is reflected in a lot of company rules – they often say that they are fine with tattoos as long as they’re not too visible.

A simple solution is to wear a long-sleeved shirt, jacket or long pants to hide tattoos on your arms and legs and avoid getting tattoos on your face and neck unless they are religious or tribal. The other side of this equation is that even though there are preconceived ideas about tattoos in the workplace, these can work in an organisation’s favour. The head of creative who walks into the room with tattoos all over is immediately validated as a true creative.

The truth is that appearance doesn’t affect work performance, but there might be an odd case where a sale is lost because a client took issue with the sales rep’s tattoos/piercings, but this is highly unlikely and rare.

Work ethics vs tattoos

Does appearance play a role in work ethics? The only place where ethics and appearance intersect is where actions are taken based on impressions formed due to appearance. It would be unethical to not appoint a person because he/ she could be disruptive based on his/her tattoos.

Although there are no laws for or against tattoos in the workplace, some employers often discriminate against potential employees based on their tattoos. In this case, it would be appropriate to enforce specific appearance standards, but in most cases, discrimination is subjective and based on opinions of individuals.

Nonetheless, job applicants can do something to prevent this or act against discrimination. If they are unsuccessful in their applications and believe it was based on their tattoos and that appearance wouldn’t be relevant in the specific vacancy, the applicant would then have recourse to lodge a dispute with the CCMA.

The employee/applicant is protected under the Employment Equity Act against unfair discrimination, there are several listed grounds for unfair discrimination such as race, religion, gender, etc. but in the most recent amendment the act was amended to include “or any other arbitrary reason” and tattoos would fall under the arbitrary reason, unless you are told or it’s mentioned in the company’s dress code.

Old-school thinking

To navigate this usually grey area, HR has to play the middleman, balancing the company’s needs vs the employee’s needs in an attempt to reach a middle ground between the two while ensuring all outcomes are fair. In the case of tattoos, HR should consider the merits of the company’s dress code, the business reasoning behind the dress code, and any adverse effects of allowing tattoos.

In general, employees are allowed to have tattoos but try to keep them within reasonable limits within the office and aligned with how your organisation manages its dress code and customer meetings. If you are fired for having a tattoo, you have a strong foundation from which to fight the ruling thanks to the Constitution, but, as with anything, within realistic boundaries.

Tattoos shouldn’t limit your career growth, but there are still instances where it could.