[Sussex] Tie becomes unbound

[Geoff Teale]

I'll address both responses at once, I must admit to consulting my wife (and
one of her colleagues) on this one...  if this looks long and boring skip
ahead to the final example at the bottom... you'll love it.

You both work on reasonable expectations.  We can (and you do) argue that if
it is considered necesary to project a certain image in order to secure
sales or maintain business then it is OK to dictate said dress code.  This
_is_ a defensible point in law - however, remember the burdon of proof would
be with the defendant - you employer would have to prove that the business
would suffer if you were to modify your dress and that, by contract
(implicit or explicit) you terms of employment include dressing to meet
these conditions as a function of your job.  If you dictate the latter
condition then European law dicates that you must either provide clothing or
make supplimentary payments to your employees in order that they may
purchase clothing to meet your requirement (such payments would have to be
at a level considered reasonable by a european court).

I wonder how many companies would rather pay all their staff a "suit
allowance" rather than let them dress down.

Two examples:

00000000
========
Your Michelin ** restaurant (very swanky ;) )  - there is actually an
overriding physical reason to impose dress code - that is hygene.  Beyond
this requirement any additional standard of clothing would have to be
dictated as a function of the job and either be provided or funded.  They
would have a hard time proving that more relaxed dress code would damage
their business (though a court may in reality accept the circumstantial and
cultural evidence that you quote), the outcome of any case would be hard to
predict - but the basic hygene laws would hold true no matter
what the outcome.

10000000
========
Playing Mickey Mouse at Euro Disney.  Obviously this role requires a very
strict dress code - it is in essence the job.  Disney would have no trouble
proving that a different dress code would be detrimental to the business.

01000000
========
Working as an IT consultant to a large bank.  You firm could argue that part
of the consultants role is sales and as such they could also argue that
appearance matters - this again is not a rock solid arguement when you are
selling technical skill.  Here's where this one gets really interesting :).


If the consultant would not normally freely choose to wear a suit, then
wearing one for sales purposes could be deamed as a misrepresentation of the
product/services on offer. If the consultancy firm considers smart dress a
contractual requirement of their employees then this misrepresentation is
the responsibility of the firm.  Technically this is fraud.  

This may sound like a Babel-fish arguement, but it works in law.  To recap,
if the consultancy firm can prove they have a valid contractual requirement
for the consultant to wear a suit they instantly become guilty of fraud
because the consultant would not normally wear a suit outside of duress.
This in turn means that any contracts secured by forcing the consultant to
wear a suit are null and void and thus forcing the consultant to wear a suit
is demonstrably detremental to the business.  This of course debases the
valid contractural right to dictate dress and thus the firm cannot legally
dictate to the consultant what they should wear.

..oh, I hadn't thought of that said Arthur Andersson and promptly
disappeared in a puff of logic.. :)

-- 
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