Resources: Blog

The return of employer uniforms on termination of employment


In the box to the left

Ending the employment relationship can sometimes be difficult and often, those responsible for facilitating the termination are so relieved to have it all over that they don’t worry about pursuing the return of seemingly insignificant employer property, like used uniform items.

Ending the employment relationship can sometimes be difficult and often, those responsible for facilitating the termination are so relieved to have it all over that they don’t worry about pursuing the return of seemingly insignificant employer property, like used uniform items.

The return of uniform items at the end of employment, particularly those with company branding, can seem like quibbling over something small. However, the purpose of pursuing the return of such property is not necessarily to recycle clothes for a new employee, but to protect the employer’s brand and reputation.

Consider, for example, a situation where a former employee (or some unrelated third party in possession of the uniform) appears in an image or video online committing acts or promoting views that are inconsistent with the employer’s values. This type of negative publicity can be particularly damaging and is, for the most part, easily avoidable.


How can employers ensure that employee uniforms are returned at the end of the employment relationship?

  • Maintain control over uniforms by keeping uniforms on the premises – for example, an employer may allocate uniform items to employees to wear during their shifts, provide appropriate change room facilities for employees to change into their uniform and provide a laundering service to ensure that uniforms are cleaned for employees. This type of arrangement will ensure that uniforms do not leave the employer’s premises. Employees should have no need to wear the uniforms outside of the workplace or remove them from the premises.
  • Include a “return of employer property” clause in all employment contracts, including specific reference to the return of uniforms – not only does this approach set up an early expectation (at the commencement of employment) but it also gives the employer a contractual right to rely on when demanding the return of uniform items at a later date.
  • Include the return of uniforms in a termination checklist – remembering which loose ends to tie up at the conclusion of the employment relationship can be challenging. Having a checklist to remind employers of what needs to be done can be helpful in this regard. Including the return of uniform items on this checklist will help to remind managers that returning any uniform items is an essential part of the termination process.
  • Make a formal written request for the return of uniforms – if an employer forgets to ask an employee to return their uniform at the time of termination, they can follow up with a written request after employment has ended. This might take the form of an email or a letter to the employee’s last known address.
  • Seek assistance from a legal advisor and/or the courts – where all direct attempts by an employer fail, they may consider consulting with their legal advisor about how the matter can be escalated. This may involve seeking orders from a court for the return of property or an injunction restraining the former employee from wearing the uniform items. Usually, this type of relief is only available in serious circumstances and can be a costly process.

In summary, employers should not forget that uniform items supplied to employees are the employer’s property and should be returned on termination of employment. The consequences for failing to seek the return of uniform items can be serious and can include damage to brand and reputation.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

Commission finds termination letter sent to inactive email address was not notification of dismissal

You've got mail!

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.


Fair Work Commission finds dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of an employee’s heat of the moment remark

You’re bacon me crazy

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the primary remedy is reinstatement. This means the employer is ordered to return the employee to their employment in the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.


Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.