Can an employer decide employee's hair colour not suitable after many years?

[NicoAndTheNiners]

A friend has had blue hair for years, had blue hair at interview and got the job. Has been blue for last few years no issue with work. They've now introduced a new uniform policy and it states no artificially dyed hair. She's been told to change it and refused. They've suspended her without pay.

It depends. Is she customer facing, and/ or in a professional environment?

She can be disciplined for failing to follow a reasonable instruction, whether this is reasonable or not would be up to a tribunal. If they don't choose to discipline her over it, they could well find other reasons to manage her out.

Also you say a few years, is that over two?

Also is she on a nil hours contract?

I think your friend needs to contact ACAS.

Professional environment and client facing.

5 years working, not a zero hours contract.

Just seems bonkers you can employ someone and then after five years decide they don’t look like what you want them to. The job/environment/clients haven’t changed in that time.

Acas is a good idea, thanks. She’s in a Union as well so will ring them on Monday.

Hmm I think she might work for the same place as me! Is it public sector?

Our uniform policy states ‘natural’ hair colours are acceptable but they’ve suddenly started enforcing it. The unions are looking into it because it’s such dodgy ground.

Yes, public sector.

Uniform policy was changed about a year ago, maybe six months ago....I don’t think before then it mentioned hair colour. In fact it didn’t. And yes, they’ve had a crack down and suspended a few people over the last few days.

ACAS have published a paper on their website which is a detailed study into dress code and appearance of staff. The law is still emergent, there is no specific law on hair colour. Tribunal claims tend to be assessed on the basis of whether the employer acted reasonably in their insistence of a certain dress and appearance code. If the employer can argue that the uniform and appearance they are stipulating is to enhance an organisational image, to enable their staff to successfully execute their duties, they tend to be successful in sending someone home due to lack of compliance. For example the female temporary worker who was sent home for refusing to wear high heels.

Your friend hasn't been dismissed, she is currently suspended without pay (whether they do actually dock her wages or it's just a threat presumably remains to be seen). Fact is, they can argue they are being reasonable by giving her a period of time to adjust her hair colour, and she has the choice whether to comply with the changed rules of appearance. If she is resolute then she risks eventual dismissal and would have to take them to Tribunal, but the precedent appears to largely be on the side of employers on this one:

It would appear that the law pertaining to dress codes is far from clear and is still emerging. The balance of advantage seems to lie with the employer to determine the requirements of dress that best suit the image of the business in the interests of entrepreneurial freedom. To some extent, this relegates equality under the law to a secondary consideration (Schiek, 2004)

Tribunal may consider it through the lense of Equality, ie has the employee been discriminated against in comparison to other employees eg male colleagues being treated more leniently.

As it states above, if the employer can show that dress code is essential for the image and successful execution of duties, and that they've taken reasonable steps to ensure both sexes are treated equally, then the former trumps the latter. Time will tell whether this may change.

Thank you. See seems fairly resolute that she won’t be changing her hair colour so will be interesting to see what happens. I’m sure employer will argue about professional image but I don’t see that they can say she needs normal coloured hair to perform her duties. She’s managed ok for years, no clients have complained.

A change in terms&conditions does require consultation with the work force so they can't just decide this on day 1 and enforce it on day 2, but fundamentally employers do have the right to decide upon and enforce terms and conditions like this and if those aren't acceptable to the employee they should resign. The new Ts&Cs should be introduced with a long enough lead-in that any employee who can't accept the new regime can resign and work out their notice. Suspension without pay wouldn't be appropriate unless there has already been a consultation and plenty of lead-in time and the employee is trying to make the employer blink first.

Having blue dyed hair is not a protected characteristic so it is entirely OK for an employer to discriminate on grounds of hair dye choices.

but I don’t see that they can say she needs normal coloured hair to perform her duties

Indeed, that is the counter-argument.

Employers have their own reasons as to the importance of image, it could even be a change of senior leadership. I know for a fact that public sector are doing a lot atm towards increasing alignment and equivalence to Industry. This focus on image is very much an Industry/Commerce perspective. It's increasingly prevalent, I'm afraid. Your friend needs to decide whether having a job is the priority, of whether having blue hair is part of who she is and she isn't prepared to budge.

Uniform policy was changed about a year ago, maybe six months ago

The reality is they've given the employee's ample time to change aspects that don't comply. If coloured hair wasn't specifically mention, I suppose they could argue that point until they're blue in the face (!) - at the end of the day those are the standards they want staff to adhere to. They could also argue that "that woman over there has used henna on her hair, why isn't she being sent home." And so it goes on....

employees