Facial piercings, tattoos, what can employers mandate regarding the appearance of their employees or potential employees?

Many people choose to express their personalities through body modifications including piercings and tattoos or even unique hair colours. In some cases, practices may feel that such expression conflicts with the image the practice would like to project. So, what actions can a practice take to control the appearance of employees, or even potential employees?

Workplace Policies

Workplace policies are the best way for practices to control appearances in the workplace. A well-rounded uniform policy, which stipulates what is and what is not acceptable in relation to piercings and tattoos and in relation to personal hygiene, is useful to set the standard.

Generally, the requirements in the policy must be reasonable, for example, a policy may prohibit an employee from showing tattoos with offensive symbols, or large, obvious facial piercings, but it would likely be unreasonable to prohibit an employee from having any piercings or tattoos at all. If an employee then breached the policy, the practice could address it as a disciplinary matter.

Using the available evidence to support a position is important when framing local policies. For example, there is a significant literature regarding the health risks of piercings including metal allergies, local infections and scarring. Facial piercings make the facial skin harder to clean, increases the risk of acquiring unwanted infection for the staff member concerned and this poses a challenge as many dental procedures (including using a triplex syringe) generate large amounts of splashing and some of that will be deposited onto the facial skin.  Hence, facial piercings which cannot be covered by either supplied PPE or an approved waterproof covering are not acceptable.

The current mandate from NHMRC infection control guidelines and Hand Hygiene Australia for “bare below the elbow” addresses the wearing of jewellery on the fingers, hands and wrists, and the use of false fingernails from the standpoint of infection control as a uniformly applied international best practice. This is another example of where the practical elements of wearing such items can directly impact on occupational health.

Likewise, there is an extensive literature around adverse oral health impacts from lip and tongue piercings (e.g. Tongue and lip piercings are associated with the risk of gingival recession, and tongue piercings are  associated with tooth fractures), so a staff member wearing those in a clinical setting runs counter to contemporary best practice in oral health, and may give confusing messages to patients who are being told why they should not wear these.

Workplace Health and Safety:

Practices can also regulate employee appearances from a Workplace Health and Safety perspective. In particular, large piercings and jewellery may cause a risk to health and safety as masks or other equipment may get stuck on the piercing and cause an injury. Employers may therefore consider requiring that employees do not wear large jewellery in piercings, or remove all facial piercings before attending work.

Discrimination

Whilst practices may introduce workplace policies which govern an employee’s appearance in the workplace, it is important to ensure that the policy is not discriminatory.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘Act’) the following attributes are protected, meaning an employee cannot be treated differently, or have adverse action taken against them for having a protected attribute. These include:

  • Race
  • Colour
  • Sex
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Age
  • Physical or mental disability
  • Marital status
  • Family or caring responsibilities
  • Pregnancy
  • Religion
  • Political Opinion
  • National extraction; and
  • Social origin.

Practices should be mindful that in some cases, piercings and tattoos may be cultural or religious and therefore may be protected under the Act.

Potential Employees

Practices should remember that prospective employees are also protected from discrimination under the Act. As such, the Practice should communicate its expectations regarding personal appearance early in the recruitment process and ensure that employment related decisions are not made based on a protected attribute.

This article was written by the ADA HR Advisory. For further information on this article, please contact ADA HR Advisory Service on 1300 232 462.