Canadian Employment Law Today

Local office's jean and shorts ban clotheslined Overall company policy allowed employees to use their judgment for appropriate attire at work; local managers didn't have authority to impose their own bans BY JEFFREY R. SMITH A British Columbia arbitrator has rescinded an employer's dress code policy that prohibited jeans and shorts in the office. e B.C. Assessment Authority (BCAA) is an organization that establishes and maintains uniform real property assess- ments throughout the province under the Assessment Authority Act. It also produc- es annual rolls with property classification and market value, which provide the basis of tax rolls. e BCAA's head office is in Victoria, with 15 field offices around B.C. Apprais- ers and assessors often go on field visits to residential, commercial, industrial and government properties to determine their value, though sometimes such information can be determined from other sources on- line without employees leaving the office. Annual property assessments are sent to property owners by Dec. 31 each year, and owners have until the end of January to dis- pute an assessment. As a result, late Janu- ary — and early February, if Jan. 31 falls on a weekend — is a busy time for the BCAA, with a large number of telephone and In- ternet queries along with members of the public coming to the offices. Appraisers have to respond to queries and explain how classifications and market values were reached. Appeal hearings are then held un- til mid-March, making the period of Jan. 1 to mid-March the "inquiry period." e BCAA's collective agreement had no dress code incorporated into it. Many employees accepted informal guidelines to dress with professionalism and wore clothes such as dress pants and collared shirts, and sometimes shorts in the sum- mer. Some appraisers found it was better to dress casually for field visits because people were more likely to open the door — dress pants, shirt and tie often gave people the impression they were trying to sell them something, according to some BCAA em- ployees. e same was said when members of the public came to the offices during the inquiry period — a more casual appear- ance put people more at ease. Dress in the field offices was generally more casual than the larger urban offices. Jeans and shorts were rarely seen in the latter. Occasionally management sent re- minders to employees in various offices that the intended dress was business casu- al, to portray a "professional — yet casual image." Some offices banned jeans except for on specified "Jeans Days." New workplace attire policy In October 2010, the BCAA adopted a workplace attire policy applicable to all employees in its head and field offices. e policy recognized staff worked in "a variety of environments" when conducting field visits, so it couldn't provide direction for appropriate dress in every work situation. It provided a guideline, stating "it is our expectation that employees will come to work wearing appropriate and profession- al attire. Common sense, reasonableness and good judgment should prevail when selecting work attire that is appropriate for the intended activity and in accordance with WorkSafe BC and any other safety considerations." e policy stated it was applicable to employees, but didn't specifically indicate local office managers could determine standards for their individual offices. After the policy was adopted, the deputy assessor at the Okanagan region office told employees that jeans were not permitted unless there was a "unique situation." He said jeans, running shoes and t-shirts were not considered appropriate and profes- sional attire mentioned in the corporate guidelines. e Okanagan region assessor followed that up by saying blue jeans would not be worn in the office during the inquiry period, which was not well-received by employees. e Okanagan assessor decided to form an employee committee to consider appro- priate professional attire for the Kelowna office. In May 2011, the committee en- dorsed a guide that was distributed to em- ployees for approval or rejection. e guide stated sports outfits, revealing outfits, and torn or dirty clothing was unacceptable, as was clothing with brand names or sports logos. Almost all the employees approved the guide. During collective bargaining in January 2012, the union encouraged employees to wear blue jeans as a protest. Employees in some offices did while other offices didn't participate. A couple of weeks later, the Vancouver Island regional manager told his employees that jeans, running shoes and t-shirts were not suitable, except when doing dirty field work. He interpreted the BCAA workplace policy as giving local managers authority to direct appropriate attire for their offices. Jeans, shorts banned in local office In December 2013, the Kelowna office moved to the third floor of a high-end of- fice building. Before the move, employees often wore shorts and jeans to the office, but the assessor felt the new place was an opportunity to project a professional im- age in line with other tenants in the of- fice building, so he banned blue jeans and shorts in the office. e BCAA obtained the use of change room and shower facili- ties for employees who wanted to walk or cycle to work and change into professional clothes when they arrived. It was common practice for employees who expected to be in the field for more than half the day could wear jeans or shorts while they were in the office. However, this was becoming less common as appraisers spent more time on analytical work in the office and less time in the field. Several employees who usually wore jeans to the office weren't pleased and had to purchase other pants for work. Oth- ers were also unhappy they couldn't wear shorts on hot summer days. e union grieved the restrictions on blue jeans and shorts in the office in the Kelowna office, saying they should be al- lowed in some circumstances and were in- consistent with the BCAA corporate poli- cy. e union also argued the restrictions were "an unreasonable and impermissible unilateral employer rule." e union argued the BCAA's workplace attire policy didn't permit local managers to impose blanket restrictions such as the one banning blue jeans and shorts from the Kelowna office. It also said the policy put the onus on employees to decide whether and when to wear jeans and shorts. It also 4 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CASE IN POINT: WORKPLACE POLICIES Before the workplace attire policy, the employer carried on for 36 years without one. Dress standards evolved in local offices individually. if inappropriate choices were made, managers gave guiding advice.

• Cover