Clean shave – or else

Where the employer has imposed relevant policies and procedures in relation to the fitment and seal of personal/respiratory protective equipment, the short answer for employers dictating employee facial grooming is yes.

Recently, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) upheld an employer’s decision to terminate an employee who failed to cleanly shave.

This was due to the health risks posed by the airborne contaminants that the employee faced while discharging their duties.

In Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation v. Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU),[2004] FWC 786, the FWC rejected CEPU’s claim that the requirement of employees to be clean shaven was unreasonable.

Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation (TasWater) claimed that the procedure requiring employees who utilise respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to be clean shaven was mandatory. This was a result of the requirements of AUS/NZ standard 16975.3:2023 and the manufacturing and fitting specifications of the RPE.

Facial hair restriction reasonable

Ultimately, the FWC determined that this direction was not excessive or unreasonable as:

• It ensures that employees do not become ill or die from silicosis or asbestosis disease.
• Employers are required to safeguard the health and safety of their employees and the direction is directed to discharging that duty.
• Regulation 44 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations requires TasWater to provide its employees with appropriate PPE and for the RPE supplied to be effective.
• Both AS/NZS 16975.3:2023 and manufacturer instructions clearly specify that employees using the supplied RPE must be clean shaven.
• The procedure was implemented after extensive consultation as required by s. 47 of the Work Health and Safety Act.
• The requirement to be clean shaven is not onerous on employees.
• Exemptions were permitted in limited situations.
• The requirement only applies to individuals using or likely to use RPE.
• TasWater’s actions were “rational and appropriate” as the direction is in the best interests of its employees due to the health and safety concerns.

This decision by the FWC upheld the earlier findings of the Commission in James Felton v. BHP Billiton Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 1838, where a BHP employee was fired as he “made a deliberate and well-informed decision” to not comply with the clean shaven policy of the site.

Ultimately, whilst an employee can maintain their facial grooming as they see fit, where this conflicts with WHS requirements or an employer’s policy which relates to health and safety, the direction to be clean shaven will be found to be lawful and reasonable.