|
|
Post by Cowboys on Nov 30, 2006 18:39:32 GMT
just posting this because im in a bit of dispute with work at the moment regarding dress codes, as i chose to wear a hoodie over my work cloths as a coat i have been told that this is not acceptable as it does not conform to the dress code, just wondering what others opinions on this are as i have raised it as a grievance, that the item as far as i know conforms to the definition of a coat and that i am allowed freedom of expression in the type of coat i chose to wear at work...
this has left me wondering to what grounds an employer is allowed to influence a persons choice of dress code and how far such a code can go before infringing on civil liberties...
|
|
|
|
Post by God's Work Experience Student on Nov 30, 2006 19:13:47 GMT
Civil liberties only relate to the coercive relationship between the individual and the state- they don't apply to the the private voluntary relationship between an employer and employee. From a legal point of view you have a complaint if: You have a contract which contradicts the dress code.
The dress code discriminates against one sex (or race).
You wear a hoodie for religious reasons.
Your employer is enforcing the dress code to harass you.
The last one is the easiest to demonstrate. Frankly I don't think you have a leg to stand on but our employment law is pretty buggared up and heavily weighted towards malicious employees so maybe they won't bother fighting you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cowboys on Nov 30, 2006 20:17:10 GMT
ive been looking into this in some more detail... our dress code to which we have sign to say we accept make no mention of coats
so as far as i can work out the issue boils down to is my hoodie considered a coat or and and if so are we allowed to wear coats at our desk during working hours...
so on the first point: a coat ive not yet for a relevant definition of a coat which would exclude a hoodie most seam to follow the following example:
"an outer garment with sleeves, covering at least the upper part of the body"
That from dictionary.com (i don’t have an oxford English dictionary with me so this will have to do)
I’ve also been looking into to what extent an employer is allowed to influence choice regarding a garment from looking at some sites regarding dress code they state that the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 protects freedom of expression and that this can be relevant in cases regarding dress code at work.
On the second regarding coats at work, nothing in the dress code and many employees chose to wear coats over their work attire, so unless a company wide policy is put into practice that we are not allowed to wear coats at desks (id love them to try get that through with the union! lol) I as far as I can tell have a justifiable case
|
|
|
|
Post by Graham was disembowelled on Dec 4, 2006 0:16:29 GMT
hmm i'm with gaz on this.
this is 99% because i like to be an awkward git with large companies and stuff.
i think gaz will win this simply because they will know that he is likely to keep kicking up a fuss about it and i think they'd rather keep things nice and calm rather than have to change policies and piss other people off.
if they're going to allow freedom for people to wear outdoor coats at desks, then they need to either come up with their own definition of what is classified as an outdoor coat, or be compelled to provide one themselves for all employees.
quite how you could come up with a general definition of a coat and have it exclude hoodies, i dont know, because traditionally, with coats being intended to be worn as an outer layer of clothing designed to protect against weather - they tend to have hoods on as well. and if you are going to have a thing in the definition which says 'this excludes hoodies' you will then have to go on and form a definition of what is a hoody. but then this will cause controversy as the next day mr gareth, being mr gareth, will turn up in his adidas 'hoody' which conforms even more to a description of a coat, but when zipped up has the exact same appearance of a hoody.
and i suspect that if they go ahead with all this malarkey, and still refuse mr g his freedom of expression (lol) then he will carry on taking the piss, and keep coming in with more ridiculous 'coats' which conform with the definition of 'coat' but which are plainly ridiculous. good examples being the peruvian poncho and the RAF flying jacket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cowboys on Dec 4, 2006 12:56:29 GMT
hehe you know i wll!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cowboys on Jan 31, 2007 13:05:55 GMT
by the way just an update i won this  |
|
|
|
Post by Graham was disembowelled on Jan 31, 2007 14:35:37 GMT
congrats. we knew you would.
|
|
