Canada: The Arbitrator's Decision In The Case Of Centre Jeunesse De Montréal - It Has The Authority To Set Rules For Proper Dress, Piercings, Tattoos And Personal Appearance In The Workplace

Last Updated: August 22 2012
Article by Valérie Korozs

With the collaboration of Isabelle Paradis, articling student

The Employer, Centre Jeunesse De Montréal - University Institute (Hereinafter The "Centre"), Adopted A Dress Code As Well As A Piercings, Tattoos And Personal Appearance Policy For Its Employees (Hereinafter The "Policy").

Although The Validity Of The Policy Was Contested By The Canadian Union Of Public Employees, Local 4268 (Hereinafter The "Union"),The Arbitrator, Mr. Carol Jobin, Found Nearly The Entire Contents Of The Policy To Be Valid In An Extensive 60-Page Decision Rendered Last April 13 1.

CONTEXT

The Centre's mission is to "guarantee the protection of young people whose safety or development is compromised; help young people and young mothers experiencing adjustment difficulties to develop the skills and balance necessary to function in their environment; lead young people who have committed offences to put an end to their delinquent conduct and assume responsibility for themselves in society." 2

The preamble to the Policy indicated that, in light of its mission, the Centre wished to serve as a model for its clientele of vulnerable young persons by requiring its 3,170 employees to project an image of professionalism, thereby also enhancing the credibility and image of the Centre.

The Policy 3 prohibited, among other things, the wearing of "very short shorts", 4 spaghetti strap tank tops, clothing showing membership in certain groups, and flip-flop type sandals. As for tattoos, they were tolerated but "should not reveal more intimate parts of the body of the person (for example, a tattoo above a breast or above the buttocks should not be visible). They must also not make reference to criminal groups or to images of a sexist, violent or racist nature." 5 As for the appearance of hair, it must not be excessively coloured or cut in the "Mohawk" hairstyle. Finally, "piercings on the tongue and earrings inside the earlobe (stretch earrings) are prohibited." 6

By way of a grievance, the Union contested the validity and sought the immediate withdrawal of the Policy. The arbitrator found nearly the entire Policy to be valid. His conclusions can be summarized as follows:

  • The adoption of a dress code policy was a legal exercise of the employer's management rights since its purpose is related to the protection of health and safety and the corporate image;
  • The Policy could apply to all the Centre's staff, including employees who were not in direct contact with the clientele;
  • The employer was justified to require the concealment of tattoos when they only appeared on certain parts of the body ("for example, a tattoo above a breast or the buttocks" 7) and in prohibiting certain types of piercings;
  • Although the Policy potentially infringed certain fundamental rights and freedoms, it met the test under section 9.1 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms8 (hereinafter the "Charter")9.

The arbitrator only found a part of the Policy invalid on the basis that it was abusive, namely, the requirement that the employees "act as models for [their] colleagues".

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

The Union claimed that the Policy violated the right to physical well-being, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and respect for one's private life, all rights protected by the Charter. In the Union's submission, the Centre had not shown that the rights and freedoms protected by the Charter were only minimally impaired.

The Union also alleged that the wording of various guidelines in the Policy was vague and that there was therefore a risk that the managers in the various departments would apply the Policy in an arbitrary and subjective manner, each according to their own specific beliefs and prejudices.

In addition, according to the Union, the Policy ought not to have extended to all of the 3,170 employees because several classes of employees had very limited contact with the clientele.

The Union also claimed that the employer had not shown that there were any tangible effects of the dying of hair or piercings on the clientele.

For its part, the Centre maintained that, since 2004-2005, numerous employees had had questions about the guidelines for proper dress and that one of the aims of the Policy was therefore to clarify the situation. In response to the Union's opposition to the application of the Policy to all of the staff, the Centre asserted that they all had to be capable of having contact, whether directly or indirectly, with the clientele and that the Centre's mission was to serve as a model for the clientele. Finally, the Centre pleaded that the Policy, as drafted, was included in the management rights that were conferred on the Centre in the collective agreement. It maintained that no evidence was adduced on the alleged discriminatory or abusive nature of the Policy, or with respect to an alleged violation of fundamental freedoms.

ARBITRATOR'S DECISION

The arbitrator's reasons were divided into two parts.10 The first dealt with the validity of the Policy in light of the principles which have emerged from the case law on the employer's management rights. The second addressed the various breaches of the rights and freedoms alleged by the Union.

EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT

The arbitrator explained that the employer had the power to adopt regulations and policies in the exercise of its management rights. The case law has dealt in detail with the parameters for the validity of a policy adopted by the employer. The arbitrator cited with approval a decision which held that a policy must meet six conditions to be valid: "it must be compatible with the collective agreement; it must not be unreasonable; it must be clear and unambiguous; it must be brought to the attention of the employees before being applied to them; they must be informed that a breach can lead to disciplinary measures; and it must be applied with consistency."11

In this case, the main objectives of the Policy were to project an image of professionalism, prevent breaches of the dress code, ensure that the vulnerable clientele were not placed in a situation in which the institution's teachers appeared to be contradicted by the image projected by the institution's employees, ensure the institution was in compliance with its statutory obligations, and ensure the health and safety of the employees. The arbitrator concluded that these objectives were legitimate in light of the nature of the Centre's activities. This was therefore a reasonable exercise of the management rights.

As for whether the Centre could impose the Policy on all its staff, the arbitrator rejected the arguments presented by the Union, holding that the Centre's decision to do so was reasonable. In the arbitrator's view, from the perspective of a child at the Centre, every member of the staff represented the Centre. Thus, "the operationality of a differentiation which takes into account these differences [in the degree of visual contact with the clientele] and the control thereof through supervision seems illusory or impracticable without entailing significant and insurmountable drawbacks."12

However, the arbitrator held that the obligation in the Policy requiring employees to act as models for their colleagues was invalid on the basis that this requirement largely exceeded the duty of loyalty and obedience applying to employees generally, and was therefore abusive and unreasonable.

As for the Union's fear that the Policy would be applied in an arbitrary, subjective and abusive manner, particularly due to the wording of certain guidelines which it considered ambiguous, the arbitrator concluded that none of these requirements seemed irrational on a reading thereof. He also pointed out that this was a hypothetical issue since the Union had adduced no evidence of the arbitrary or subjective application of the Policy. The arbitrator noted that if the Policy were abusively or unreasonably applied, the Union had remedies available to it and could take measures to correct the situation in such event.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHARTER

The Union alleged that the rights to freedom of religion, respect for private life, physical well-being, and freedom of expression contained in the Charter had been violated.13

The arbitrator therefore had to consider, firstly, whether there was a potential infringement of one of the fundamental rights protected by the Charter and, secondly, whether the potential violation was justified pursuant to the test under section 9.1 of the Charter.

POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS

The Union argued that the prohibition against wearing a cap or scarf could affect the freedom of religion of certain employees, despite the fact that the employer's representative had indicated that this did not apply to the hijab. The arbitrator held that "the risk of an error in judgment does not constitute a breach of a fundamental right".14 He found that the state of the law on discrimination and the duty to accommodate has been sufficiently developed to prevent this requirement from infringing on freedom of religion.

The Union also claimed that the requirements in the Policy relating to proper dress (particularly the prohibition against wearing string halter tops which allow the bra to be seen) infringed the privacy of the Centre's employees.

In the arbitrator's view, these requirements were more akin to a potential infringement of freedom of expression than of the right to privacy. The arbitrator therefore proceeded to the second stage of the analysis, i.e. the test under section 9.1 of the Charter, which we will consider below.

Finally, the arbitrator concluded that the requirements of the Policy relating to personal appearance (for example, the prohibition against excessive colouring of the hair, displaying tattoos on parts of the body that are described as intimate,15 and piercings of the tongue) threatened the right to privacy and, potentially, the right to physical well-being and freedom of expression. Therefore, the test under section 9.1 of the Charter also had to be met to prevent this part of the Policy from being declared invalid.

TEST UNDER SECTION 9.1 OF THE CHARTER

The finding that there were certain potential infringements of the rights and freedoms at issue obliged the arbitrator to apply the test set forth in section 9.1 of the Charter, i.e. to determine whether: 1) the objectives sought are legitimate; 2) there is a rational connection between the imposed restrictions and those objectives; 3) the impairment is minimal; and 4) there is proportionality between the prejudicial effects suffered by the employees and the objectives sought.

The arbitrator concluded that the first stage of the test had been met. The nature of the Centre's mission warranted the adoption of such rules. The arbitrator rejected the Union's argument to the effect that the Centre had to show that the clientele had complained about the manner of dress, since the Centre has the obligation to provide a public social service, and it is not imperative that its Policy be designed to correct a problematic situation.

As for the restrictions on tattoos and piercings, the arbitrator also held that the impairment was minimal because not all tattoos were prohibited, since only certain parts of the body were affected. With respect to piercings and earrings inside the earlobe (stretch earrings), the purpose of the restrictions, "in addition to hygiene and safety, was to prevent self-mutilation, i.e. to protect their personal integrity". The arbitrator noted that the employer acknowledged that there was greater social acceptance of this phenomenon and it had not, therefore, prohibited all piercings or facial jewelry. Thus, he also concluded that the impairment was minimal in this respect.

The arbitrator also found that the second stage of the test, i.e. whether there is a rational connection between the objective sought and the Policy, had also been met, since the directives adopted by the Centre sought to limit bad influences on a vulnerable and impressionable clientele and to set a good example for them.

As for the third stage of the test, which considers the degree of impairment, the arbitrator held that the Centre had drafted its Policy in a manner that limited the impairment, for example, by only prohibiting very short shorts and not all shorts.16 These guidelines met the criterion of minimal impairment, "allowing for real flexibility in the choice of clothing".17

The last stage of the arbitrator's analysis, dealing with the proportionality between the prejudicial effects suffered by the employees and the objectives sought, raised more questions concerning the requirement of concealing tattoos on certain parts of the body and the prohibition against referring to criminal groups in tattoos. The Centre argued that these restrictions were warranted on grounds of decency and to set an example for the clientele. After considering these grounds, the arbitrator concluded that the criterion of proportionality required by the Charter had also been satisfied.

Footnotes

1 Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 4628 et Centre jeunesse de Montréal - Institut universitaire, D.T.E. 2012T-336 (T.A.) (hereinafter the «Decision»).

2 Pages 5-6, para. 13 of the Decision.

3 For all the rules, see page 9, para. 13 of the Decision.

4 Page 9, para. 13 of the Decision.

5 Idem.

6 Idem.

7 Page 9, para. 13 of the Decision.

8 R.S.Q., c. C-12.

9 This test is explained in section 3 (ii) of this article.

10 For the sake of brevity, we will not consider the reasons surrounding the preliminary objection raised by the Centre with respect to the notion of "policy grievance" : see paras. 77 to 93 of the Decision.

11 Shell Canada Ltée and Travailleurs unis du pétrole du Canada, section locale 121 du SCEP, D.T.E. 2010T-68 (T.A.) (J.P. Lussier), at page 30, para. 100 of the Decision

12 Page 35, para. 122 of the Decision.

13 Sections 1, 3 and 5 of the Charter.

14 Page 43, para. 151 of the Decision.

15 I.e. above a breast or the buttocks.

16 Page 58, para. 205 of the Decision.

17 Page 53, para. 180

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions