Printable version

Grocery store policy banning facial jewellery reasonable, arbitrator rules

Not uncommonly, an employer will attempt to regulate the personal appearance of its employees. When challenged at arbitration, the employer must show that its policy is reasonable, and that it addresses an element of employees' appearance which could be harmful to the employer's image and adversely affect business.

This issue was dealt with recently in a decision issued by arbitrator Paul Teskey. The grievor was a cashier at one of Canada Safeway's Winnipeg stores. In March 1996, she had her nose pierced. At that time, the store's policy had required that women employees be conservative in their use of cosmetics and jewellery, but made no mention of nose studs. Neither customers nor supervisors complained about the grievor's nose stud, and the matter was not raised during her performance review.

In June 1996, Canada Safeway issued a new policy which explicitly banned nose studs. The grievor approached management to find out what she should do, as she had been advised that, once in place, the stud should not be removed for six months until the piercing had healed. She was told by the store manager that unless she removed the stud, she would not be allowed to work. She refused, and was placed on leave of absence without pay.

At arbitration, the company produced the results of a survey it had commissioned into consumer opinions on facial jewellery. The survey concluded that such jewellery was not acceptable to a large proportion of Winnipeg grocery shoppers, and could adversely affect the company's business.

In dismissing the grievance, the arbitrator noted that, for a personal appearance policy to be sustained, it must relate to a legitimate business purpose, be reasonably related to community standards, not impinge unduly on an employee's personal rights, and be consistently enforced.

In terms of the first criterion, the employer was in a highly competitive business, where customer preferences were influenced by employees' personal appearance. The rule therefore served a legitimate business purpose. Although nose studs were becoming more common, in terms of community standards they were still "at the cutting edge of general acceptability", and the employer was not required to run the risk of offending customers. Nor did the rule unduly interfere with employees' rights: there was no prohibition on wearing facial jewellery away from the job.

However, the arbitrator ruled that the company should have allowed the grievor to wear the nose stud until her piercing had healed. Otherwise the policy, issued after the grievor had had her nose pierced, would have prevented her from wearing a nose stud on her own time. As this would have taken two more months, he ordered that she be compensated for this period of time.

It should be noted that there were no issues of discrimination contrary to human rights legislation in this case. Had there been, the company might have been required to show that the grievor could not be accommodated short of undue hardship. Also, it clearly helped the company's case to have some evidence of community standards in support of its position. Finally, the arbitrator noted, the company had not chosen to subject the grievor to discipline as part of its response.

For more information on this subject, please contact George Rontiris at (613) 563-7660, Extension 275.