I’ve discussed dress codes before but the latest case to hit the headlines is, without doubt, one of the oddest I’ve come across.
A sales assistant at Harrods claims she has been “driven out” of her job over her refusal to wear makeup.
There are a number of interesting factors to this case, and on balance, I believe the employee has a case for constructive dismissal and I expect her to succeed if she does take it to a tribunal.
While Harrods had a written policy in place, they did not impose it for several years. This means that they in effect entered into a variation of contract by mutual agreement. Also, the code is one of the daftest I’ve seen for a long time. It is arguably equally restrictive for both men and women but insisting that women wear full make-up is out of touch with modern public opinion. How many young women wear full make-up these days? And, ladies, from a male perspective, less is definitely more on this one, trust me. Also, if an employee has sensitive skin that reacts to the layers of face paint, then what? Skin needs to breathe, plastering foundation, powder and blusher will inevitably clog the pores.
I can understand that the store wants to have a smart and professional image for its customer facing employees, but Ms Stark looks perfectly fine without make-up, so any dress code should relate to matters of dress. Anything relating to make-up should confine itself to what not to wear that may go against the corporate image – oh, I dunno, full Goth White with black eye shadow, for example. Conventional and businesslike should be sufficient, leaving it up to the individual to opt for nothing at all, a bit of lippy and eye shadow or the full works if they choose.
Reading the code – or the excerpts published in the Groan – someone has been applying their own personal prejudices and imposing them on others. A man may wear a full set, for example, but a moustache is a no-no. Why? A neatly trimmed moustache is perfectly professional in appearance. Hair must be complementary to skin tone. What? While many women like to dye their hair, most men don’t, so that’s an absurd condition – or are they required to dye their hair if they have dark hair with fair skin, as I have. Men also have to measure their sideburns – they may not be wider than one inch (good grief!). And how many men polish their nails? I certainly don’t. Someone, somewhere in that store is seriously anal.
Good luck to Melanie Stark. She deserves to win and I hope she takes the bastards to the cleaners. There’s sensible dress codes and there’s taking the piss. Harrods are very much in the latter camp.
Merkins. They should insist all female staff at Harrods must wear a merkin while on the job.
I wonder how Harrods would react if their younger female staff started turning up in full Goth makeup?
Is the picture in the Graun with or without make-up? Maybe it is special make-up that makes you look more ‘natural’?
On a personal note, I find women wearing make-up, shaving their legs and armpits, spraying themselves orange, having boob-jobs and so on to be absolutely bizarre and unnecessary, so to that extent I’m totally on her side.
On the other hand, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable of Harrods to want to pander to general prejudices either, the place is a shit hole for people with more money than sense.
It’s about what is reasonable and insisting on full make-up is clearly unreasonable.
It’s also sexual discrimination.
They INSIST that women wear make-up – BUT NOT MEN,
Oops.
A US finance house fell down over this years ago.
They had a back-of house EXPERT computer techie, with very long (neat, tied-back) hair,
And sacked him.
In court, his lawyers produced a secretary from the front office with even longer hair – US firm said (IN COURT) “but she’s a WOMAN” …
After the laughter subsided, the case collapsed forthwith.
I hope this goes the same way.
XX I certainly don’t. Someone, somewhere in that store is seriously anal.XX
Just look at who owns it. And from what I have heard from reliable informants, arabs are WELL into a bit of the old anal, so…
Just an interesting point, she was actually an employee of HMV working in a concession inside Harrods – which is why she had to follow Harrods non-imposed guidelines. She was given the choice of working at another HMV store.
I still think she has grounds to sue, not because of the sexual differences but because of the lack of imposisition of the rules for many years. If she can prove that – game set and match to her.
That said, what difference is there between the state interfering in the right of business owners to welcome smokers, and the right of this particular business wanting to have people working for them looking a certain way?
Hint of a contradiction?
There is no contradiction whatsoever. The employer in seeking to impose his will on the employee’s body is exercising an unfair advantage in the contractual arrangements between the two.
As I’ve mentioned, it is perfectly reasonable to have a dress code. It is not remotely reasonable to impose anything that directly affects the individual’s body – such as insisting upon full make-up or insisting that someone cut their hair.
In this instance, the employer is like the state imposing its will on the owners of property who might wish to allow smokers – the might of the bully. So in that respect, your analogy holds up even if not in the manner intended. 😉
There is a large difference!
It’s on the employer’s dime, so if he wants to restrict his pool of potential employees to the ones who only agree to wear make-up, then that it is decision, the consequences of which he will suffer (or not as the case may be).
As an aside, you also seem to assume that it is a frivolous requirement, but what if it was proven that business was less because of a particular personal presentation? I do not know, just wondering.
The state does not suffer any consequences, it is not on its dime and owners/smokers do not have the choice to decide for themselves but sufer the consequence.
So not the same thing at all! 🙂
The only thing that I could agree with in this case is if that person was allowed not to wear make up for years, and then made to do it to create a breach of contract.
Otherwise, if you do not want to wear make up at work, then do not work for Harrods.
No, there isn’t a difference. The employer is operating from a position of strength. The relationship is therefore unbalanced. The employee does not have the luxury of opting for something else in the current economic climate – so saying “take another job” is effectively saying “sign on at the jobcentre”. Therefore we are talking about coercion using force.
As I have said – repeatedly, so I do wish people would take notice – there is nothing wrong with a dress code. This is perfectly reasonable. There is everything wrong with something that directly impinges on an individual’s body – that is out of bounds, frankly. I don’t care whether it is on the employer’s dime – the employee’s ownership of his or her body must take precedence. The exchange is one of time and expertise for money. The employer does not own the employee and may not impose anything that impinges on the employee outside of work hours (except in very specific circumstances where it may directly affect work).
I very much doubt there is any evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Do you know of anyone who would not buy a product because the sales person wasn’t wearing make-up? I certainly don’t. Indeed, I don’t take any notice. This is about the prejudice of the person responsible for putting together the dress code and such behaviour needs to be vigorously resisted.
Employers buy our time, not our bodies and souls. They need to be reminded of this forcibly if necessary from time to time.
Sorry for not coming back earlier.
Where in the world is it the responsibility of any employer if there is a lack of jobs?! Indeed, they are certainly doing more than me or you in that respect since at least they are providing some.
The complete responsibility for an economy where not having a job at harrods means going on the dole (and that is a bit of a stretch) is squarely on the politicians who screwed it up over the years (and the people who voted them in).
In a functioning economy, with full employment (ie a low rate of unemployment, not zero), the employee would be in a position of strength and probably would be able to tell them to shove it. As it is, the shoe is on the other foot and frankly, it is nobody’s business but harrods and that employee. If the conditions to work at harrods have to do with presentation, which is very understandable (whether you care or not, by the way, and I did not make an assertion as I wrote “I don’t know”), then if you do not want to comply, it is your prerogative.
The only argument is if there was a change in the implied contract between the 2 parties.
Furthermore, it puts harrods at a disadvantage, as well as someone else who would not be fussed about wearing make up who would not get that job.
Lastly, I would say that it is all those state nosing regulations which are contributing greatly to the present state of the economy, and only carry on making it worse.
I didn’t say that it was the responsibility of an employer to provide jobs.
However, unrestrained we know from history where the “on my dime” attitude will lead. Why do you think the state felt it necessary to intervene in 1801 with the Health Safety and Welfare of Apprentices Act? Because employers using the “my dime” argument were exploiting those they employed. Human nature being what it is, they will happily do so again. It’s why we had the rise in the trades unions. That both they and the state got out of hand is deplorable, but the underlying need is still there.
The issue about the economy merely means that the employer is in a position of strength and will be willing to exploit that strength, therefore there is no choice on the part of the employee. I am currently engaged in a part time low paid job with shitty hours that are leaving me permanently tired and suffering frequent headaches. It is causing me harm. I had no choice – unless you regard insolvency as a choice. If I had a choice in the matter, I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near this job. Hobson’s choice is no choice. Given this, the employee needs someone or something who will exercise similar strength on his behalf to resist the excesses of the employer – an evening up of the contract as it were. In my case, I have H&S duty of care and am in the process of using it to obtain more reasonable shifts. It’s that or suffer increasing illness. I do not accept that the employer’s dime is sufficient reason to cause me harm due to shift patterns that foreseeably cause problems with the circadian rhythms.
As to the basic issue, of course Harrods are perfectly within their rights to insist upon a dress code. I think that dress codes make sense – particularly for customer facing staff. However there is a line across which the employer has no right to interfere and that is anything that directly affects the employee’s body. Would you, for example, be happy for an employer to insist upon their logo tattooed onto the employee’s body? I very much doubt it. The principle is the same, though. All that differs is the degree.
What never ceases to amaze me is that libertarians who are rightly quick to complain when the state uses coercive behaviour will readily give a free pass to businesses when they engage in the same behaviour. Exploitation and bullying are not the preserve of the state and an employment contract should not be a carte blanche to dictate how an employee presents their body. Clothing, yes, absolutely, their body, no absolutely not.