REWARD INSIGHT
Dress redress
Danny Done, managing director at Portfolio Payroll, discusses developments
T he Government Equalities Office, in connection with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), will reinforce the legalities of dress codes to both employees and employers in light of last year’s petition ‘Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work’. Employers will be advised on the current laws surrounding controversial dress code requirements but the government will not be creating any new laws in this area for the time being. The petition, begun by female agency December 2015, Ms Thorp was sent home from work at a large accountancy firm which her agency had assigned her to because her smart flat shoes did not meet the criteria of the agency’s dress code; it contained a rule that female workers must wear high-heeled shoes of between two and four inches. She was offered the opportunity to go and buy a pair of shoes which would fit the policy; however, she refused, arguing that wearing them all day would cause her pain, and that her male colleagues were not subject to the same rules. She was sent home without pay. The dress code in question was very detailed in its requirements, even specifying that nail varnish colours outside of fourteen authorised colours could not be worn. In addition to heel height, it also set out the following: ● make-up worn at all times and regularly re-applied, with a minimum of: light blusher, lipstick or tinted gloss, mascara, eye shadow, light foundation/powder ● tights of no more than 15/20 denier to be worn at all times on duty; black or brown may be worn for darker skin tones and natural/tan for lighter skin tones ● regularly maintained hair colour (if an individual colours her hair), with no visible roots. worker Nicola Thorp, was one which garnered significant press interest. In
Thorp’s petition, which gained 150,000 signatures, sought to require it to be illegal for an employer to require its female staff to wear high heels at work. Her cause was backed by the Women and Equalities Committee which undertook several lines of research in its inquiry, including from a health and wellbeing point of view. Although the research was prompted by a requirement on female staff to wear high heels, the Committee also heard from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly reapply make-up. The Committee compiled a report making nine recommendations for action. ...declined the recommendation to increase the current levels of compensation... The government has announced it will take up some, but not all, of the recommendations. It noted that some of the evidence presented during the inquiry suggested employment practices in some industries appear sexist, unacceptable and potentially unlawful. However, the government response to the inquiry acknowledged that scope for redress already exists. It notes that the Equality Act 2010 contains provisions which make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate or harass a person because of or for reasons related to sex in employment, including in the arrangements it makes for deciding to whom to offer employment, or as to the terms on which it offers employment. This protection also applies for existing employees, for example when seeking a
new job or promotion within an organisation. Gender discrimination cannot be tackled with regulation alone, it said, because removing barriers to equality also requires the raising of awareness and an attempt to change attitudes. Because of this, one of the accepted recommendations is in response to the Committee’s assertion that employees sometimes do not feel able to challenge the dress codes they are required to follow even when they suspect they may be unlawful. The Government Equalities Office will produce guidance on dress codes in the workplace, as a specific response to the Thorp petition, and will work with ACAS, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Health and Safety Executive when doing so. The guidance will also be aimed at raising employer awareness of the issue, and is expected by summer 2017. The Committee had earmarked certain industries it wished to be particularly targeted by the guidance (i.e. hotels and tourism, travel and airlines, temporary work agencies, corporate services, retail – especially luxury retail – and hospitality, especially bar, waitressing and club work). The government did not, however, confirm that any industry would be targeted over another. The government has declined the recommendation to increase the current levels of compensation to be awarded to individuals who successfully claim they have been discriminated against, labelling current guidelines as to determining the amount of compensation to be proportionate and fit for purpose. On a separate note, the dress code previously utilised by Ms Thorp’s agency has now been significantly amended, including the removal of the requirement for females to wear high-heeled shoes, instead asking for shoes which are clean, polished, in good repair and plain black. n
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | June 2017 | Issue 31 34
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online