Male employee asked to cut hair short

nicechap

highguyuk wrote: »

Good discussion so far!

He's worked there less than 2 years, and isn't typically someone who would like to kick up a fuss - hence why we're trying to support him. His company, quite small and local, are quite traditional in their ways.

His boss asked him verbally to cut his hair this week, quoting his contract. I've advised that he needs to ask for this in writing formally.

I suspect that approach would aggravate his boss as he’s already got it in writing in the contract you’ve quoted.

With less than 2 years service he can be dismissed for any non- discrimatory reason. Even after 2 years service, people can be dismissed without too much time & effort.

I would suggest a much more softly softly approach and to decide whether his hair is more valuable than his job at this stage of his life.

bouicca21

Would the company require Sikhs to cut their hair?

KatrinaWaves

bouicca21 wrote: »

Would the company require Sikhs to cut their hair?

No, as religious beliefs are protected rather than just 'wanting long hair' Also Sikhs in my experience wear turbans to cover their hair which looks quite smart and may come under smart business attire more than what is colloquially known as a manbun. The question would likely be would they be happy with a woman having a 'manbun' hair styling.I worked once in an old fashioned teashop (famous up norff) and everyday the managers would sort my hair into a style they were happy with as I was incapable of doing anything by their standards :rotfl:

I'd be surprised if they can enforce a haircut. Im sure he had this length hair when he was employed, it hasnt suddenly sprouted overnight. The worry is, do they just find another reason to sack him which cannot be argued as gender discrimination.

TBagpuss

It's a tricky one. On the face of it, it does look discriminatory.

However, as has been raised with the issue of women being required to waear high heels, things are not always as straightforward as they may seem.

My understanding is that an employer can enforce a dress code requiring different styles of appearance between men and women, provided that they require a "comparable or equivalent standard of smartness and conventionality for both sexes."

So you can lawfully have requirements which (for instance) requiremen to wear ties but don't require women to do so, or require women to wear heels but don't require men to do so, because the standards for normal / conservative buisness attire are different for men and women.

So I think the answer here is that the dress code *may* be discriminatory but isn't necessarily so.

One thing I would consider is how your relatives's appearance compares with that of women who have longer hair? is it as tidy, well maintained etc.

The policy may well equate to unlawful discimination but does your realtive want to be a test case?

It might be that his best bet would be to speak to HR and say to them that he is concerned that the policy as it stands is iscrimintory, as it imposes more stringent requeirements on men, and to avoid putting the comapny at risk of being accused of disrimination, perhaps theyshoul consider revising the policy so that it has the same requirements 9e.g. tidy, professional hair) for both genders.

He may still of course find that they do not consider his particualr style to be tidy and professional, in which case he may need to consider changing the syle or cutting his hair.

TBagpuss

Just to add - your relative's race is also relavant. If he is a POC and wearing braids or other styles based on his culteral heritage then there is lso an issue of racial dsicrimination. It doesn't sound from your description as though that is the case, but if he does speak with HR it may be worth mentioning that as a concern as well, not least as it is a valid reason, separate from his own personal issue, as to why they may want to review the wording of their dress code.

Comms69

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

I'm guessing it's the fact that men are told "short, neat and tidy" where the women are only told "neat and tidy".

I kind of see it, but I don't agree that it's discrimination.


Having a clean look in a professional environment seems perfectly reasonable

Manxman_in_exile

TBagpuss wrote: »

It's a tricky one. On the face of it, it does look discriminatory.

However, as has been raised with the issue of woemn being required to waear high heels, things are not always as striaghtforward as they may seem.

My understanding is that an employer can enforce a dress code requiring different styles of appearance between men and women, provided that they require a "comparable or equivalent standard of smartness and conventionality for both sexes."

So you can lawfully have requirements which (for instnace) requiremen to wear ties but don't require women to do so, or require women to were heels but don't require men to do so, because the standards for normal / conservative buisness attire are different for men and women.

So I think the answer here is that the dress code *may* be discriminatory but isn't necessarily so.

One thing I would consider is how your relatives's appearance compares with that of women who have longer hair? is it as tidy, well maintained etc.

The policy may well equate to unlawful discimination but does your realtive want to be a trest cas?

It might be that his best bet would be to speak to HR and say to them that he is concerned that the policy as it stands is iscrimintory, as it imposes more stringent requeirements on men, and to avoid putting the comapny at risk of being accused of disrimination, perhaps theyshoul consider revising the policy so that it has the same requirements 9e.g. tidy, professional hair) for both genders.

He may still of course find that they do not consider his particualr style to be tidy and professional, in which case he may need to consider changing the syle or cutting his hair.

I agree with you and, if anything, would tend to the view that it is probably not discriminatory. And not because I have anything against long hair. My hair has been very long at work (six years without a haircut!) but I got bored with it. And it now alternates between long and short.


I suspect from the OP's description that the employer doesn't have a HR "department" as such and that it may be the owner who deals with these matters anyway.


If it's a relatively small local firm, I really don't see any benefit in rocking the boat for the sake of a haircut - it's not much of a principle to take a stand on, or make a test case out of.


I may be wrong.

Retrogamer

Comms69 wrote: »

I kind of see it, but I don't agree that it's discrimination.


Having a clean look in a professional environment seems perfectly reasonable

If women are allowed to have long hair and men are not, it's discrimination. It's ok you don't agree with it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is.

Comms69

Retrogamer wrote: »

If women are allowed to have long hair and men are not, it's discrimination. It's ok you don't agree with it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is.

I'm saying i'm not sure it is.


As long as rules are broadly similar, they don't have to be identical.

Manxman_in_exile

Nick_C wrote: »

No. But neither can a police woman.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://recruit.college.police.uk/Officer/Documents/Appearance_Standards_GuidanceDocument.docx&ved=2ahUKEwjU3PCdq8DjAhWKbsAKHexDCeUQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1z7PG8HZGusQnaEqvZDrrJ

That's interesting. I would have sworn that I've recently seen female PCs with a pigtail or ponytail.


I would also have thought the guidance regarding officers on "covert operations" was possibly self-defeating!