A male civil servant who wore Hawaiian shirts with clashing ties – one patterned with condoms – has lost his claim for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal.
Raymond Akers, who worked for JobCentre Plus in Weymouth, said that a requirement for men to wear a collar and tie in the office was discriminatory and unnecessary, as he rarely dealt with the public.
He also claimed that women were able to wear what they liked and that many wore outfits that were “clearly inappropriate”.
His manager David Hallet told the Southampton tribunal that although Mr Akers complied with the letter of the code, he did not comply with its spirit, and described Akers’ outfits as “controversial”. After receiving numerous warnings about his style of dress, Mr Akers resigned.
The tribunal dismissed Akers’ claims and said that women were also expected to dress smartly even if they did not have to wear a tie.
Tribunal chairman Charles Twiss said: “The claimant staged a silly defiance of the rules. The objective of management was to create a professional standard for men and women. The effect of the application of the dress code was the same for both sexes and, if anything, easier for men to comply with.”
So what is the law on ties at work? Tribunal results can give an indication of which way a case is likely to go but they are not binding.
A case that did make it to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was that of Matthew Thompson, another Department for Work and Pensions employee. Mr Thompson worked at JobCentre Plus in Stockport as an admin assistant and was not in contact with the public.
The EAT confirmed the legal test that should be used in these cases. Employers who want to achieve a certain level of smartness have the right to impose a dress code that treats men and women differently. However, whether that justifies a specific requirement such as a collar and tie will depend on whether there is no other way of achieving the aim when applying the standards of contemporary dress. Or to put it another way, being treated differently is not discriminatory – the claimant has to show he was treated less favourably.
Unfortunately, the EAT did not provide a conclusive answer – instead of deciding the matter it sent the case back down the chain to a tribunal to decide the answer based on the legal test the EAT had provided.
The DWP took the decision to withdraw from the case as 7,000 claims from male employees had been submitted to the tribunal system and all were awaiting the outcome of the Thompson case.
Ultimately, there are no legal rules about dress codes at work. However, the principle that an employer has the right to require staff to dress smartly in certain circumstances – if they are in contact with the public, for example, has been in place since a 1977 tribunal case.
It is important to remember that even if your dress code applies a conventional standard to both sexes it must also be enforced fairly.
Another point to remember is that dress worn for religious reasons can come under the Race Relations Act (a turban worn by a Sikh) or the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations.
