What Not to Wear: How Clothing May Affect Promotion Decisions

What you wear to work may affect your chances for promotion, according to a recent survey by Office Team, an employment agency that specializes in administrative staffing. Eighty percent of executives interviewed admitted that clothing choices affect who they choose to promote. 

More than 1,000 senior managers were asked: “To what extent does someone’s style of dress at work influence his or her chances of being promoted?”

Here’s how the managers responded:

• Significantly: 8 percent
• Somewhat: 72 percent
• Not at all: 20 percent

The survey respondents also offered some outlandish examples of outfits they heard of or directly observed someone wearing to work. Some outfits were actually costumes — and it wasn’t Halloween. Others were just inappropriate for work.

Here are just a few examples:

• “A dinosaur costume”
• “Pajamas”
• “A chicken suit”
• “A space suit”
• “Shorts and house slippers”
• “A wolf mask”
• “A see-through dress”
• “A T-shirt, tie and flip flops
• “Fishnet stockings and stilettos”
• “Very tight bike shorts”
• “A vest with a big hole in the back”

From the employee’s perspective, it’s important to remember that going too casual may be going too far.

“Although a polished appearance alone won’t land you a promotion, it can help others envision you in a leadership role,” said OfficeTeam executive director Robert Hosking.

For employers, remember that you can institute dress code policies that set forth your company’s expectations of work attire. The clearer you are about what you expect your employees to wear to work, the less likely you are to have problems.

If someone shows up to work in their tight bike shorts or a wolf mask, at least you will have a policy in place to handle it.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Counsel/Content

Want more information? HRCalifornia subscribers can check out this HR Library page on dress standards. CalChamber’s Employee Handbook Software also includes a sample dress code policy.

More Employment Lawsuits in 2013?

According to international legal services firm Fulbright & Jaworski’s newest Litigation Trends Survey, employers faced more lawsuits in 2012 than 2011, with labor and employment disputes and contract litigation at the forefront.

California employers: Don’t expect increased employment claims or regulatory changes to slow in 2013.

Both employers and HR professionals are wise to keep a proactive watch on key trends in California employment laws. Know your potential risk areas by downloading CalChamber’s free “Employment Law Trends” white paper.

CalChamber members can download their copy from the White Papers section under the Cases & News tab on HRCalifornia.

NLRB Union Poster Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court

A federal Court of Appeals struck down a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule requiring most companies to post a notice informing employees of their union rights.

The controversial poster rule required most private-sector employers to put up NLRB-created workplace posters entitled, “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act.” The poster generally informs employees of their rights to organize a union, bargain collectively through representatives chosen by the employees and to make efforts to improve the terms and conditions of their employment.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the NLRB violated employers’ free speech rights and overstepped its legal authority. Judge Raymond Randolph noted that federal law protects “the rights of employers (and unions) not to speak” and that the poster rule was “compelled speech.”

The rule, according to the federal court, treats the failure to post the NLRA notice “as evidence of anti-union animus in cases involving, for example, unlawfully motivated firings or refusals to hire — in other words, because it treats such a failure as evidence of an unfair labor practice.”

The posting requirement was initially scheduled for implementation in November of 2011. That deadline was first delayed until April 30, 2012, and then put on hold indefinitely pending the outcome of legal challenges.

This particular challenge was brought by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other business groups.

“Today, manufacturers claim an important victory in the fight against an activist NLRB and its aggressive agenda,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons, in a statement. “The poster rule is a prime example of a government agency that seeks to fundamentally change the way employers and employees communicate. The ultimate result of the NLRB’s intrusion would be to create hostile work environments where none exist.”

In a separate lawsuit, a federal trial court in South Carolina also concluded in April 2012 that the NLRB lacked the authority to promulgate the posting rule. The NLRB challenged the decision and the case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was heard in March 2013.

The NLRB has statutory jurisdiction over private sector employers whose activity in interstate commerce exceeds a minimal level.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Counsel/Content

March Means Madness

Even if you’re not a college basketball fan, you very likely know that March Madness officially started  this week.

It’s practically impossible to avoid being bombarded by coverage of March Madness – it’s on the national and local news; it’s on radio; it’s on your phone; it’s everywhere.

The men’s national college basketball tournament is a big deal to a lot of people, and it’s something you might have to worry about in your workplace. Issues can arise relating to gambling, lost productivity or co-worker arguments when rivals face off.

Want to learn more? Download this CalChamber white paper (registration required). CalChamber members can download a version from HRCalifornia’s White Papers section.

Shane Peterson, Content Development Editor

Applebee’s, Facebook and the Infamous Receipt

By now, many of you may have heard of the waitress who was fired for posting on her Facebook page the receipt of a pastor who failed to tip her. 

The pastor objected to an automatic 18 percent gratuity, crossed out the automatically added amount and wrote, “I give God 10% Why do you get 18”

Applebee’s subsequently fired her claiming, in part, that she shared private information about a customer and that her conduct was prohibited by company policy.

Whether the waitress should have been fired is the subject of a hot debate. One question that is being raised is whether Applebee’s privacy policy was, in fact, communicated to employees at this particular location and/or consistently enforced by the company. 

As HRWatchdog likes to remind employers, communication and consistent enforcement of your policies  are the keys to any type of lawful employee disciplinary measures.

Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Employment Law Editor/Staff Counsel  

HRCalifornia's HR Library features a complete Social Media section that covers discrimination, hiring, employee privacy and other issues related to social media. CalChamber members can also check out our Making Sense of Social Media in the Workplace white paper (log in required).

Not a member? Sign up for a 15-day Free Trial. Once you complete the sign-up process, you can access the white paper.