Comment: The legalities of HMV's dresscode controversy

Music stores have long been considered bastions of individuality, staffed by individuals who are encouraged to show their distinct personalities. Yet recent news has shown HMV requesting that staff cover up what it classifies as ‘extreme’ body art. This move forms part of a change to their uniform policy, which also outlaws the wearing of open-toed shoes and flip-flops in a campaign to smarten up their staff. 

Where do employers stand?

To a large extent, employers are free to set a dress-code that they consider appropriate for their business, provided that they are consistent and do not stray into discriminatory territory. 

HMV has stated that behind this policy is its aim to ensure that its staff are considered approachable by the public. As a large store, HMV sells a range of products to a diverse clientele across the country. They are perfectly within their rights to decide that not all of this clientele will view someone with extensive piercings or tattoos in the same way. Whilst the management are keen that staff can show their personalities and recognise that there are benefits to be derived from this, an unfettered right to do this does not sit easily with a large multi-site retailer that wishes to portray a consistent image to its customers.

Discrimination

It is important that the enforcement of any dress code does not result in discriminating against employees. The policy should be enforced consistently, but also sympathetically. Particular care should be taken where tattoos or piercings may be for religious or cultural reasons and temporary body art, such as henna, should also be considered. It is important that both male and female employees are treated in the same way, including in relation to piercings.

Clearly, each person’s body art will be different, meaning a fixed policy is difficult. However, the company should form a view as to what it generally considers acceptable. For example, would a single tattoo on an arm be acceptable, where an entire ‘sleeve’ might not? Is there a certain part of the body where piercings would not be considered appropriate? Consideration should also be had as to how the company may wish such body art to be concealed or covered up; whilst this may be more straightforward for many tattoos, piercings may be different.

It is important that all employees are made aware of these general considerations and that they are set out as clearly as possible. In addition, specific training should be given to those who will be required to enforce the policy, including how to deal sensitively with the issue. Body art is very personal and individuals may not take kindly to what they may perceive as criticism or an attempt to repress their personality.

James Hall, Associate at Charles Russell LLP