Male employee asked to cut hair short

Les79

nicechap wrote: »

I believe only about 1 in 50 applications goes on to win at ET. I can't find a more recent article (I'm sure it was BBC website last week) but this illustrates the breakdown.


https://www.pauldoranlaw.com/chances-winning-employment-tribunal/


The OP has probably found this link about dress codes since posting.


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709535/dress-code-guidance-may2018-2.pdf

You should count a settlement at Conciliation stage as a win too, which makes up a much higher proportion than 1 in 50

Undervalued

Les79 wrote: »

You should count a settlement at Conciliation stage as a win too, which makes up a much higher proportion than 1 in 50

Calling a settlement "a win" is misleading because it doesn't in any way prove that the case would have won at a tribunal. A huge number of cases are settled because an employer cannot, in all but the most exceptional cases, be awarded costs if the employee loses.

Even if they are it would seldom cover anything like the true cost of fighting a complex case.

OK the employee gets some money, rightly or wrongly, but it doesn't establish right or wrong.

Owain_Moneysaver

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

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

Police officer with manbun:




A British Airways check-in worker has said the company's dress code discriminated against him after he was sacked for his man bun hairstyle.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45082801

Beverley Sunderland, managing director of Crossland Employment Solicitors, said that employers were allowed to require a "conventional standard of appearance" which might be different for men and women.

But she said a case today would depend on whether men with long hair tied up in a bun were now considered sufficiently "conventional".

Ms Sunderland said: "What might not have been a conventional appearance at one stage might be now. I wasn't allowed to wear trousers at work 30 years ago. All that has changed."

Les79

Undervalued wrote: »

Calling a settlement "a win" is misleading because it doesn't in any way prove that the case would have won at a tribunal. A huge number of cases are settled because an employer cannot, in all but the most exceptional cases, be awarded costs if the employee loses.

Even if they are it would seldom cover anything like the true cost of fighting a complex case.

OK the employee gets some money, rightly or wrongly, but it doesn't establish right or wrong.

Indeed.

However, it is a misleading statistic. It could easily be read to mean that you have a 1 in 50 chance if it goes the full distance.

That solicitor's website, I believe, stated a 50% win rate at the ET itself.

For anyone motivated more by principle, stating the 50% win rate would be better. For anyone motivated by money, giving appreciation to the prior stages would be beneficial.

Energize

What even is the contractual definition of "short"?

When I worked for government my hair on top was about 6 inches in length. Is that short or long?

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued wrote: »

Calling a settlement "a win" is misleading because it doesn't in any way prove that the case would have won at a tribunal. A huge number of cases are settled because an employer cannot, in all but the most exceptional cases, be awarded costs if the employee loses.

Even if they are it would seldom cover anything like the true cost of fighting a complex case.

OK the employee gets some money, rightly or wrongly, but it doesn't establish right or wrong.

Settled cases shouldn't be counted as either a win or a loss. I'd exclude them from the stats in terms of win -v- lose.

Les79

highguyuk wrote: »

Clear as mud then?!

I had a search around too before I posted and couldn't see any clear guidance. I'm of the opinion that as long as any individual, male or female, is dressed and presented appropriately for the job that it should be accepted.

My family member has for example been given "employee of the month" awards recently, whilst having long hair, clearly demonstrating that his style is having no impact on his work performance.

Slight word of caution, if there are pictures of him with the long hair and winning the award, they *could* argue that the real reason for any future dismissal was NOT because of the hair issue (even though it could be) but rather some random performance issue..... "Why else would they have given them employee of the month if long hair was such a big deal" is the question you'll potentially face at ET.

IF they intend on taking this further, I would recommend that they think long and hard about as many potential scenarios as possible. How to answer the tricky questions like above.

Even if the *do* have a discrimination case, employer could get them on a technicality possibly like the one above.

Speak to ACAS I'd say, and the Union rep (if a member).

Manxman_in_exile

Not sure if this link was posted before. I read it as suggesting that it (high heeled shoes) could be considered discriminatory against women, but it's by no means clear.


I would have thought the significant bit is where they describe the possibility of the group being "discriminated" against being put at a disadvantage as a result of that discrimination with regard to dress codes.


I can see a potential disadvantage in the case of high heels (foot health etc concerns) but I can't for the life of me see how a requirement for short hair for men can put men at a disadvantage vis a vis women.


Surely that's the point of the legislation - to ensure that neither men nor women are advantaged or disadvantaged by being treated differently.


https://www.pauldoranlaw.com/high-heels-and-discrimination/

elsien

prowla wrote: »

It's not sex discrimination because you are a man, dopey!

Would you care to elaborate on that comment?

Some case law in here which may be relevant.

https://www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/can-an-employer-have-a-policy-that-requires-male-employees-to-keep-their-hair-short/98058/

Seems it could potentially go either way. How big a deal does he want to make of it? If he's in a union, that should probably be his starting point.

Comments about discrimination aside though, there must be a reason that this has suddenly become an issue. Does he know what that might be? Or is he a new employee, and the recruiter didn't make it clear at the time what the expectations were and the managers have picked up on it now he's started.

Manxman_in_exile

But surely it boils down to whether an employee who is a member of a group is disadvantaged in their employment by being "treated" differently from other groups? The purpose of the law is not to stop different groups simply from being treated differently, it is to stop them from being disadvantaged as a result of membership of a particular group.


Is the OP's relative being disadvantaged as a male because of a dress code that requires males to have short hair? What is the disadvantage? Having a haircut?