Source : Perth Now news
Aussie bosses can generally tell workers what to wear, how to groom themselves and when tattoos need to be covered at work.
But lawyers and workplace authorities warn legal problems can arise when appearance rules stop being about safety, hygiene or genuine job requirements and instead disadvantage someone because of a protected attribute such as sex, race, religion, disability or age.
The issue has drawn fresh attention following recent overseas reporting that alleged luxury giant LVMH hired staff who were young, slim and attractive, putting workplace appearance standards back under scrutiny.
In Australia, the Fair Work Ombudsman said the Fair Work Act did not specifically regulate tattoos, piercings, makeup, facial hair or general presentation requirements.
“In practice, requirements relating to employee appearance, grooming and dress standards are generally matters for employers to address, for example through workplace policies, guidelines and, in some cases, contractual terms of employment,” a Fair Work Ombudsman spokesperson said.
But employers cannot take adverse action against an employee or prospective employee because of protected attributes including age, race, disability, sex, religion and gender identity.
Adverse action can include firing someone, treating them differently or refusing to hire them.
Maurice Blackburn employment lawyer Jessica Miscamble said appearance itself was not generally a protected attribute under discrimination law, making disputes about tattoos and piercings more difficult unless the rule was linked to a recognised protected attribute.
The greater legal risk arose where an apparently neutral grooming rule disproportionately affected a particular group.
A requirement for women to wear lipstick, for example, could raise sex discrimination concerns, while a blanket clean-shaven rule could become contentious for an employee who wore a beard for religious reasons.
However, Ms Miscamble said an employer could have a stronger case where facial hair created a genuine safety problem, such as interfering with protective equipment.
“That’s what the employer would need to be able to demonstrate in order to get around that indirect discrimination angle,” she said.
LegalVision employment lawyer Joel Hayden said employers could impose appearance rules where they were “lawful, reasonable and connected to the work being performed”.
A food business restricting loose jewellery could have a clear hygiene or safety justification, while an office banning all visible tattoos simply because management disliked them would be harder to defend.
“The risk of unlawful discrimination increases when the policy controls appearance for image alone, rather than safety, hygiene, role requirements or a clear business need,” Mr Hayden said.
“The line is crossed when a policy targets, excludes or disadvantages someone because of a protected attribute, rather than because of a genuine workplace requirement.”
He said businesses should also be wary of rejecting applicants because they did not “fit the brand”.
“A business should not reject a candidate because they ‘do not look like our brand’ if that masks age, race, gender, disability or religious bias,” he said.
A 2025 Fair Work Commission case involving Carney Townsville Partnership showed how a legitimate uniform dispute could still be badly mishandled.
Employee Amy Tonkin brought an application after a dispute over whether her work skirt complied with the Townsville car dealership’s dress code.
The commission found she had not been forced to resign but criticised the way management handled the issue.
A memo about Ms Tonkin’s uniform referred to her “body proportions” and was circulated to several managers.
“To include explicit reference to the applicant’s ‘body proportions’ in a written memo advising her to obtain a larger skirt and then copy in several of the applicant’s line managers was not acceptable,” the decision said.
At the same time, the commission accepted management was entitled to raise concerns about compliance with its uniform policy.
Mr Hayden said employers often created problems by writing appearance rules around personal taste rather than what a job actually required.
“Phrases like ‘professional appearance’, ‘neat feminine makeup’ or ‘no extreme hairstyles’ can be vague, subjective and unevenly enforced,” he said.
The Fair Work Ombudsman said workers who believed they had been unlawfully discriminated against could seek assistance from the agency or their union and may be eligible to lodge a general protections dispute with the Fair Work Commission.
For employers, the safest appearance rules are clear, consistently applied and tied to a genuine workplace need.
