Resources: Blogs

Close shave

Blogs
|

What can we say in our appearance policies and dress codes about beards?

The rate of men growing their beards is increasing all thanks to the current hipster trend. Beards may be non-controversial in some working environment and not permitted in others. When confronted with a growing trend towards facial hair, employers requiring a clean shaven look may be challenged as to the reasonableness (or otherwise) of their appearance requirements for employees.

The rate of men growing their beards is increasing all thanks to the current hipster trend. Beards may be non-controversial in some working environment and not permitted in others. When confronted with a growing trend towards facial hair, employers requiring a clean shaven look may be challenged as to the reasonableness (or otherwise) of their appearance requirements for employees.

Employers should consider whether they are prepared to make allowances for facial hair in their appearance policies. Factors to consider would include branding and image, hygiene requirements and safety issues.

On 14 May 2015, a matter involving a ban on beards by the Victorian Police was dealt with by the Victorian Supreme Court. The Court upheld VCAT’s earlier finding that the ban on beards was not discriminatory. The ban was introduced by the Police in 2012, with officers allowed to have neat moustaches but no beards and no other facial hair. The officers claimed the ban made them less attractive and that there were religious reasons for their facial hair. These arguments failed in VCAT at first instance and VCAT’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. In Martin Cochrane v Ambrose Haulage Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 838 Mr Cochrane’s employment was terminated, with one of the reasons for the termination being that he came to work with a half shaved beard which showed a disregard for his employer. Commissioner Simpson observed that Mr Cochrane had not been clearly directed by his manager not to wear his facial hair in that “style”. Whilst Mr Cochrane was aware that his employer did not like it, as he had not been specifically directed not to do it – there was no valid reason for termination and Mr Cochrane was unfairly dismissed.

In James Felton v BHP Billiton Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 1838, Mr Felton’s employment was terminated because he repeatedly refused to follow a direction to present to work clean-shaven in order to allow a respirator fit test to be completed. This direction was given in the context of a clean shaven policy. In this case, Commissioner Hampton found it was reasonable for BHP Billiton to direct employees at an underground mine to be clean shaven to ensure their respirators protected them from workplace hazards.

After considering the relevant factors to the workplace, employers should set their standards for facial hair clearly and enforce them fairly. The issue of grooming, particularly around facial hair is prickly and regardless of the policy or standard, employers should always be willing to talk to employees about their policies, especially where there may be religious or medical reasons for the beard.

 

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

Court finds sole director failed to exercise due diligence in fatality prosecution

The Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure the person conducting a business or undertaking complies with its work health and safety duties and obligations.

Read more...

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

Read more...

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Mad Mex franchisee to pay $305,000 in damages for sexual harassment claim

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects employees from sexual harassment, and as part of the Respect@Work amendments now prohibits sex-based harassment.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

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 law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required