[Sussex] Tie becomes unbound

[Geoff Teale]

Steve wrote:
------------
> I would have thought that most companies would allow a men to
> wear women's cloths and let normal social pressures stop them
> wearing short skirts with sleeveless blouses.  That way they 
> cannot be seen to be sexist.
 
Well, they cannot discriminate, so if you wish to follow the female dress
code you may.  We have a cleaner here at work who does exactly that.

> In my first company (over five years back and well before this
> case started) there was a block that came out and declared 
> himself to be a transsexual.  The company required that he still
> follow the smart dress code.  Luckily he didn't choice to wear
> those "little numbers" that Nik likes so much.
> 
> After a bad time he came in claming he was feed-up with the 
> whole thing and he was going back to being a man.  HR,
> apparently told him to "go home, think it over, and come
> back into work tomorrow in his dress".  Now that was an 
> an enlightened company.

Indeed it was.  

As far as the "little numbers" go.  Bear in mind that women wearing mini
skirts can be in danger of sexual harrasment actions - there is no hard and
fast rule, but wearing sexually provocative clothing is risky.

> If I understand this right in a company that doesn't enforce
> tie wearing of it's women staff (and lets face it non do) they
> can not legally enforce it for the men either.

Absolutely - this is the precetent set by the case we are discussing.  This
was already formally law, but now there is a quoteable case to support any
claim - it makes it much easier to fight a case.
  
> I didn't see this as that much of a waste of time.  The company
> (in this case the "Job Centre Plus") was imposing an unfair 
> working practice on part of it's work-force.  That fact that the
> rule was minor is not the issue here, IMHO, but it is an important
> case in workers rights.

Absolutely.  What I meant was that it was "Job Centre Plus" who were wasting
time and money in fighting the case - they should have accepted the law as
it was and capitulated, instead they chose to spend public funds on
maintaining a farcicle rule.

The plus side is that this law has now been tested in court and we can all
now use it in our workplaces with very little risk.
 
> Why does the fact the employer here was in the public sector?
> Isn't the law about employer/employee rights?

I should make myself clearer - "civillian" as in not the Miltary or one of
the services, those people have special law that dicates that they can
expect certain standards of discipline which includes uniform for reason of
safety.  

The public sector isn't an issue.  What I am saying here is - in an office
environment where there is no physical reason to dictate dress (ie. you do
not need protective clothing; to be easily identified in difficult
conditions or to impose discipline and order for safety) do companies have a
legal right to dictate how we dress in the workplace?

-- 
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk
tealeg at member.fsf.org

"make music like mercy that gives what it is and has nothing to prove"
 - Ani DiFranco "Up Up Up Up Up Up"


The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company