Grooming policy was unreasonable, says arbitrator
Male security guards at Casino Niagara in Niagara Falls, Ont., can now wear earrings just like their female counterparts, the Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled.
The arbitrator said the casino’s grooming policy for security guards that prohibited men from wearing earrings while on duty was unreasonable. The same policy allowed female security guards to wear earrings, with certain restrictions, while on duty.
Casino Niagara argued that the policy was based on rational business interests. Stressing that it operates a business involving a casino and hotel operation, the employer said it had the right and responsibility to present a “crisp and professional face to its customers.” It also argued that personal image is an important factor in this competitive industry.
Counsel for the casino said the image of a male security guard wearing an earring is not part of the appearance the employer wanted to project. It said the rule was reasonable and did not trample significantly on the employees’ individual rights. After all, the men were allowed to wear earrings during any of their off-duty hours, during their breaks or during lunch time. And the employer argued it was easy for workers to remove and reinsert earrings.
The employer pointed to an earlier arbitration ruling where Canada Safeway Ltd. did a study that found 19 per cent of customers thought males wearing earrings would detract from cleanliness and overall neatness.
But the union pointed out that same study found 15 per cent of customers felt the same about earrings in female workers. The union said the rule was unreasonable and amounted to discrimination, and the employer was simply imposing its sense of style on male security guards. While the union conceded some customers might not like seeing male staff members with earrings, it stressed that the casino had no evidence that it would lose any business if the guards wore them.
The arbitrator said an employer has the right to preserve its public image by regulating employees’ personal appearance. But that interest is balanced against the employee’s interest in determining his own appearance. Arbitrators apply more scrutiny to personal appearance policies regarding length of hair and beards than they would policies regarding jewelry, the arbitrator said. Interestingly, the union agreed the employer has a legitimate business interest in formulating and enforcing a personal appearance and grooming policy. It did not attack the existing policy, with the exception to the prohibition on males wearing earrings.
“It is not outside the realm of possibility that some customers of Casino Niagara may not appreciate seeing male security guards wearing an earring,” the arbitrator said. “However, the employer has presented no objective evidence that wearing an earring would have any adverse impact on this business operation. It is insufficient for the employer to simply assert the proposition that the rule is necessary to maintain the ‘crisp and professional image’ it desires.”
It said there were no health and safety concerns raised about wearing earrings, and pointed out that the employer has no problems with females wearing earrings. Therefore the prohibition on male guards wearing earrings was unreasonable and must be deleted from the policy, the arbitrator said.
For more information see:
• Casino Niagara v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 278, 2005 CarswellOnt 7918 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
The arbitrator said the casino’s grooming policy for security guards that prohibited men from wearing earrings while on duty was unreasonable. The same policy allowed female security guards to wear earrings, with certain restrictions, while on duty.
Casino Niagara argued that the policy was based on rational business interests. Stressing that it operates a business involving a casino and hotel operation, the employer said it had the right and responsibility to present a “crisp and professional face to its customers.” It also argued that personal image is an important factor in this competitive industry.
Counsel for the casino said the image of a male security guard wearing an earring is not part of the appearance the employer wanted to project. It said the rule was reasonable and did not trample significantly on the employees’ individual rights. After all, the men were allowed to wear earrings during any of their off-duty hours, during their breaks or during lunch time. And the employer argued it was easy for workers to remove and reinsert earrings.
The employer pointed to an earlier arbitration ruling where Canada Safeway Ltd. did a study that found 19 per cent of customers thought males wearing earrings would detract from cleanliness and overall neatness.
But the union pointed out that same study found 15 per cent of customers felt the same about earrings in female workers. The union said the rule was unreasonable and amounted to discrimination, and the employer was simply imposing its sense of style on male security guards. While the union conceded some customers might not like seeing male staff members with earrings, it stressed that the casino had no evidence that it would lose any business if the guards wore them.
The arbitrator said an employer has the right to preserve its public image by regulating employees’ personal appearance. But that interest is balanced against the employee’s interest in determining his own appearance. Arbitrators apply more scrutiny to personal appearance policies regarding length of hair and beards than they would policies regarding jewelry, the arbitrator said. Interestingly, the union agreed the employer has a legitimate business interest in formulating and enforcing a personal appearance and grooming policy. It did not attack the existing policy, with the exception to the prohibition on males wearing earrings.
“It is not outside the realm of possibility that some customers of Casino Niagara may not appreciate seeing male security guards wearing an earring,” the arbitrator said. “However, the employer has presented no objective evidence that wearing an earring would have any adverse impact on this business operation. It is insufficient for the employer to simply assert the proposition that the rule is necessary to maintain the ‘crisp and professional image’ it desires.”
It said there were no health and safety concerns raised about wearing earrings, and pointed out that the employer has no problems with females wearing earrings. Therefore the prohibition on male guards wearing earrings was unreasonable and must be deleted from the policy, the arbitrator said.
For more information see:
• Casino Niagara v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 278, 2005 CarswellOnt 7918 (Ont. Arb. Bd.)
