Can employers in Ireland tell male employees to cut their hair short

NerdyKeith

In Ireland we have very strict policies against gender discrimination. So I'm wondering do employers have a legal right to tell men in the business world to cut their hair if they have long hair?

To me this is something that should be seen as gender discrimination. But does the law see it that way?

Paulw

What's in your employment contract?

NerdyKeith

Paulw wrote: »

What's in your employment contract?

It's a hypothetical question. I'm asking in case it becomes an issue in the future. I'm in between jobs at the moment. And might be looking at full time office work

looksee

Cut it, you can always grow it again later.

Ken.

I know if you go work in a shop like Dunnes,Tesco,etc they do say in the contract Women, hair tidy, no mad colours, understated makeup only wedding rings allowed. For men, hair neat and tidy, clean shaven or beard kept neat and tidy and only wedding ring allowed. An office where your not dealing with the public might be more relaxed.

MrBobbyZ

I'm open to correction on this, but as far i'm aware 2 men successfully sued a large supermarket chain for gender discrimination over their preference for wearing ear studs.

I think it was Dunnes, cant find any reference to it so I may have just imagined it!

seamus

In general, dress policy differences are permitted between men and women, provided those differences are based on social standards or practical concerns and not purely on gender differences.

So while you can't say that women *must* wear skirts, at the same time you can say that men may not wear skirts. The former is discrimination based on gender, the latter is based on a social standard. That is, that it's socially fine for women to wear pants, but not for men to wear skirts.

In that regard, some employers in certain fields may get away with saying that men must have their hair kept short, if to do otherwise would be seen as socially unacceptable within that industry.

Pawwed Rig

The wedding ring one is interesting as it would seem to give extra rights to those based on marital status.

...And Justice

NerdyKeith wrote: »

In Ireland we have very strict policies against gender discrimination. So I'm wondering do employers have a legal right to tell men in the business world to cut their hair if they have long hair?

To me this is something that should be seen as gender discrimination. But does the law see it that way?

Depends what area you want to work in, for example the pharma and medical device industry, it's mandatory to shave practically every day ( depends on the company) if you have a cut, it's an issue, long hair can be an issue if you have dreadlocks, they just don't hire people with dreadlocks, dirty hair and all that. Hygiene is a major focus, you need to be clean in a sterile environment.

For an office job, clean cut and shaved Is preferable, especially if you are dealing with clients face to face.

It may not be right, but there are many "unwritten" rules for certain companies. Unless they told you in the interview your hair was an issue, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Victor

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The wedding ring one is interesting as it would seem to give extra rights to those based on marital status.

Not really, as anyone can wear a wedding ring, although, yes, most of them are married. Additionally, telling people to take off their wedding ring can be an issue.

However, it's not about wedding rings as such. Different industries have different standards. In the food industry, plain bands, e.g. most wedding rings are considered sufficiently safe - they don't have jewels that can fall out, don't have major niches for dirt to build up and the silver content should keep bacteria at bay. My brother works in an engine factor and it's a no jewelry, no ties, no long hair site - they don't want people losing their fingers, scalp or worse.

Uno my Uno.

If your long hair is going to be an issue they simply won't hire you. The question is would you want to work at an office that has an issue with your hair (presuming your hair is clean, presentable etc.)? I was once in a temp job where they told me I had to shave my beard as I was to covering reception, I left, I didn't want to work for someone who judged me on the basis of my (very neat) beard.

Victor

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I was once in a temp job where they told me I had to shave my beard

Would they say this to a woman?

Uno my Uno.

Victor wrote: »

Would they say this to a woman?

I bet they had A much longer, much more objectionable list of appearance related requirements for their female employees!

NerdyKeith

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I bet they had A much longer, much more objectionable list of appearance related requirements for their female employees!

There have been cases that I've heard that women have been given hassle over not wearing makeup. Which I think is so unfair.

DivingDuck

NerdyKeith wrote: »

There have been cases that I've heard that women have been given hassle over not wearing makeup. Which I think is so unfair.

Many airlines also have phased out the trousers option for women flight attendants, which is plainly ridiculous as in the event of an emergency evacuation, I would like to think the people in charge weren't physically encumbered by an antiquated fashion statement.

As for the original question, I'm not sure. I doubt they would be able to do so unless for provable hygiene/safety reasons, which probably wouldn't apply in an office environment. Most will have a "neat and tidy" rule, which you would be expected to follow, but if they're very uptight about long-haired gents, they will just find a different reason to hire someone else.

I could be wrong, but I doubt many companies would be so foolish as to give someone so open a case for discrimination as to openly reject a candidate after asking them if they'd cut their hair and received a no.

Happdog

Pantry Franchise Ireland Ltd v Worker is the case in point. the Labour court found that the insistence on short hair for male staff but not female staff was discriminatory.

Link: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/1993/July/EEO937.html

NerdyKeith

Happdog wrote: »

Pantry Franchise Ireland Ltd v Worker is the case in point. the Labour court found that the insistence on short hair for male staff but not female staff was discriminatory.

Thank you my friend, much appreciated

Valetta

Bear in mind that if you are looking for a job, and that particular employer doesn't like long hair, then chances are you won't get the job, regardless of the law.

Obviously they won't say why, and it is wrong, but it's the way things work in the real world.

I've seen first hand where employers decide not to hire newly married females, as there is a good chance they will get pregnant and go on maternity leave.

Again, let me reiterate that it's illegal and utterly wrong, but very little can be done about it.

haveringchick

If I want to hire employees and don't want the hassle of maternity leave or parental leave, then I won't even bring women applicants in that age group for an interview, there's no point in wasting her time or my time either.
Of course I can't stipulate this in a job advertisement but when selecting candidates for interview I can exercise my rights
It's not illegal it's common sense
Likewise if I bring you to an interview and I don't like your long hair or your beard or your tats or your piercings, I won't mention them, but I won't hire you either

fret_wimp2

My brother works for a large bank. He wears an earring and has long hair. It's tidy, tied up, but it is long. They told him to take out the earring and cut his hair. He asked if they were going to make the women do the same.

They never brought it up again.

Not taking a side, Just telling of a real case and how it was dealt with.

Victor

haveringchick wrote: »

Of course I can't stipulate this in a job advertisement but when selecting candidates for interview I can exercise my rights
It's not illegal it's common sense

And the applicants can pursue their rights to sue you and/or seek to have a criminal prosecution brought against you.

MarkAnthony

haveringchick wrote: »

It's not illegal it's common sense

It patently is illegal. I think your common sense needs some adjustment.

haveringchick

Victor wrote: »

And the applicants can pursue their rights to sue you and/or seek to have a criminal prosecution brought against you.

So your telling me that even if I bring a mixture or men and women to interview for the position of say , clerical assistant, and then select a man for the position, that any of the women can seek to have me prosecuted?
For what?

haveringchick

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It patently is illegal. I think your common sense needs some adjustment.

What is illegal? How would anybody prove that I didn't select them for the position because they are a woman?
Are you saying that any employer who fails to select a woman candidate, regardless of whether she is the most suitable candidate or not, could be prosecuted?
Is that not sexist?

Speedwell

haveringchick wrote: »

What is illegal? How would anybody prove that I didn't select them for the position because they are a woman?
Are you saying that any employer who fails to select a woman candidate, regardless of whether she is the most suitable candidate or not, could be prosecuted?
Is that not sexist?

FFS no, they can't be prosecuted. Use your brain. They can be prosecuted if a clear case can be made that they engaged in misconduct, not if they did something legal.

Jeju

haveringchick wrote:

So your telling me that even if I bring a mixture or men and women to interview for the position of say , clerical assistant, and then select a man for the position, that any of the women can seek to have me prosecuted? For what?

If you mentioned it during the interview or after as an excuse for not employing the person because they may become pregnant, then yes they could, but if you were stupid enough to do so it would be deserved.

goz83

Jeju wrote: »

If you mentioned it during the interview or after as an excuse for not employing the person because they may become pregnant, then yes they could, but if you were stupid enough to do so it would be deserved.

But she clearly said that she wouldn't show how discriminatory she actually is. What she would do is absolutely wrong and judgemental, but she said she wouldn't mention it and so nothing would be done.

Pawwed Rig

Just because something cannot be proven does not make it legal. haveringchick asserted that she actively discriminates during recruitment. This is illegal but unlikely ever to be acted on.

haveringchick

Speedwell wrote: »

FFS no, they can't be prosecuted. Use your brain. They can be prosecuted if a clear case can be made that they engaged in misconduct, not if they did something legal.

Calm down darling you're getting your knickers in a twist
So you agree then that no, I can't be prosecuted for not hiring the woman.
That's good that we're all on the same page
Because at no point did I ever imply that I would "say" that I wouldn't hire the woman, just because she was a woman

haveringchick

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just because something cannot be proven does not make it legal. haveringchick asserted that she actively discriminates during recruitment. This is illegal but unlikely ever to be acted on.

How would you prove that I discriminate though, Pawwed pig.
You would have to have proof, you know.

Pawwed Rig

haveringchick wrote: »

How would you prove that I discriminate though, Pawwed pig.
You would have to have proof, you know.

Did you even read my post? Try again.

You admitted it! What more proof do you want?

haveringchick

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Did you even read my post? Try again.

You admitted it! What more proof do you want?

You can't bring an anonymous Internet post to a court of law ? Go on, how are you going to prove in court that I was discriminatory?

Victor

haveringchick wrote: »

You can't bring an anonymous Internet post to a court of law ? Go on, how are you going to prove in court that I was discriminatory?

You are making the rookie mistake of conflating lack of readily available evidence with legality. By that reckoning, if we have no evidence of who committed a murder, then there was no murder, which is patently false.

Possible evidence of discrimination:
* Disproportionate percentage of admin staff are male, despite most applicants being female.
* Disproportionate percentage of (new) female staff are over the age of 45, despite most female applicants being under 45.
* Discriminatory language used in advertising and pre-interview process.
* Discriminatory comments made to colleagues, especially other members of the interview board.
* Discriminatory comments or questions made to applicants / interviewees.
* Applicants linking your real-life persona with this account.

Pawwed Rig

haveringchick wrote: »

You can't bring an anonymous Internet post to a court of law ? Go on, how are you going to prove in court that I was discriminatory?

But this isn't a court of law??

Now if you had read my post before jumping in with a response you would have read

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is illegal but unlikely ever to be acted on.

Therefore while rogue employers, like yourself, get away with flagrant illegal activity that doesn't make it right. That said where employers disregard the law in one area they tend not to be so concerned about it in other so inevitably end up at the wrong end of some tribunal or other.

Speedwell

haveringchick wrote: »

Calm down darling you're getting your knickers in a twist
So you agree then that no, I can't be prosecuted for not hiring the woman.
That's good that we're all on the same page
Because at no point did I ever imply that I would "say" that I wouldn't hire the woman, just because she was a woman

Not so fast, sweetie pie. You can indeed be prosecuted if not hiring women is a demonstrated pattern of discrimination, no matter what you openly say.

MarkAnthony

haveringchick wrote: »

What is illegal? How would anybody prove that I didn't select them for the position because they are a woman?
Are you saying that any employer who fails to select a woman candidate, regardless of whether she is the most suitable candidate or not, could be prosecuted?
Is that not sexist?

I drove home last night at 70 in a 60.

It wasn't illegal because I wasn't caught - is that what you're saying?

As for the second part of your post, reread your original post - motive is key here.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Speedwell wrote: »

FFS no, they can't be prosecuted. Use your brain. They can be prosecuted if a clear case can be made that they engaged in misconduct, not if they did something legal.

haveringchick wrote: »

Calm down darling you're getting your knickers in a twist
So you agree then that no, I can't be prosecuted for not hiring the woman.
That's good that we're all on the same page
Because at no point did I ever imply that I would "say" that I wouldn't hire the woman, just because she was a woman

Speedwell wrote: »

Not so fast, sweetie pie. You can indeed be prosecuted if not hiring women is a demonstrated pattern of discrimination, no matter what you openly say.

Please tone down the posts or there will be cards, bans, etc.

haveringchick, your posts are beginning to attract moderator attention. This is not a good thing. Kindly adjust your posting style or you may receive a card/ban next time.