_____________________________________________
From:
Fitzgerald,
Kim
Sent:
Monday, August
13, 2007 2:17 PM
To:
Norman, Sylvia
D.
Cc:
Egerman,
Howard; Mantegani, Karen; Teixeira, Judy
Subject:
FW: Dress code
in Sacramento office 955
Importance:
High
Hi
Sylvia,
Karen
Mantegani referred this to me. Judy will
return on 8/20, and during her absence
employees are not prohibited from wearing
jeans and tennis shoes. I will have Judy
contact you when she returns. Thank you.
Kim
FitzGerald
Assistant District
Manager
Sacramento DO 955
916-381-9416
______________________________________________
From:
Norman, Sylvia
D.
Sent:
Wednesday,
August 08, 2007 4:17 PM
To:
Teixeira, Judy
Subject:
Dress code in
Sacramento office 955
Importance:
High
Good
Afternoon;
It has been
brought to the Union's attention that your
office held a formal discussion to impose a
standard dress code.
The
question is, what is appropriate for the
work environment in your area? There has
been a ban imposed on the wearing of jeans
and tennis shoes. The attire is not deemed
offensive by management, the public or
fellow co-workers in your office. You must
cease and desist the imposition of the
management imposed dress code. The Union
believes that these employees are being held
to a higher standard than others in your
area. Any dress standard must have a
business necessity and must take into
account such factors as one's disability and
religious beliefs just to mention a few.
The
Union reserves the right to receive proper
notice and to bargain any imposition and
definition of "business attire' for your
office. Since SSA has no dress code, who
determined what is acceptable business
attire for this office?
Agencies
have a right to require their employees to
look professional, especially if they have
contact with the public during the course of
their duties. But a recent decision by a
federal arbitrator shows that all bargaining
obligations must be met when changes to a
dress code or personal appearance policy are
made unless the agency can show a delay in
implementation would interfere with mission
accomplishment. U.S. Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security and National Treasury Employees
Union,
105 LRP 51851.
In an EEOC
case a complainant who alleges that her
supervisor directed her to act in a
"feminine manner" and dress appropriately
stated a claim for relief based on sex
discrimination. Knight v. Secretary of
Navy, 01940992, 4143/E1 (1994).
I would
hope that this issue may be resolved
informally if possible. I may be reached in
the afternoons at (559) 487-5062.
Sylvia
Norman, Pres. AFGE Local 3172