Canadian Employment Law Today

noted there were no customer complaints or other evidence to establish the business casual standard without jeans or shorts. e BCAA claimed it has the right to establish reasonable workplace attire rules and some employees might need guidance on what was acceptable professional attire. Employees did not have "unfettered auton- omy" in deciding what to wear to work un- der the policy, but they still had autonomy in deciding what to wear on field visits or specified casual days, the BCAA argued. e arbitrator noted that before the in- ception of the BCAA's workplace attire policy in 2010, the authority carried out its function for 36 years without one. Dress standards evolved in local offices individu- ally and employees dressed according to their circumstances — relating to whether they were in the office, in the field, and the season. If inappropriate choices of dress were made, managers gave guiding advice and direction. When the policy was instituted, there was still no specific prohibition of clothing, just an expectation that employees would wear "appropriate and professional attire." e effect was that it didn't cause "an ap- preciable change" to what employees wore, or create any consistency between various field offices, said the arbitrator. "By employer choice and design, the workplace attire policy, which was not and is not being challenged by the union, is not prescriptive," said the arbitrator. "e judgment to select appropriate attire for the intended daily activity for each situa- tion and environment is left to individual employees." e arbitrator found the issue of appro- priate attire came up when two other field offices amalgamated with the Kelowna of- fice in 2010. ere were differences in the attire standards for those offices, which spawned the policy discussions and com- mittee, and the eventual ban on jeans and shorts. e arbitrator also found the as- sessor and deputy assessor weren't fond of jeans and shorts and the office and were looking for a way to stop employees from wearing them — such as the move to a new location in a highly professional and corporate building. But banning jeans and shorts wasn't a power given to them by the BCAA's workplace attire policy, said the arbitrator. "In imposing the change the Kelowna managers chose to limit the autonomy expressly given to employees in the em- ployer's workplace attire policy. ey sub- stituted their judgment for the judgment expressly given to the employees. ey overruled the employees' judgment that had been accepted throughout the preced- ing years by both them and their predeces- sors; was consistent with the policy; gener- ated no customer complaints; and did not attract senior executive approbation," said the arbitrator. e arbitrator found the permanent re- striction on jeans and shorts in the office on non-field trip days was inconsistent with the main policy and wasn't based on any evidence that such clothing had a nega- tive effect on the BCAA's image. e griev- ance was allowed. For more information see: • Canadian Union of Public Employees, Lo- cal 1767 and B.C. Assessment Authority, 2015 CarswellBC 2268 (B.C. Arb.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK December 9, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR JEFFREY R. SMITH Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today. He can be reached at jeffrey.r.smith@thomsonreuters.com, or visit www. employmentlawtoday.com for more information.

• Cover