Web27 Aug 2004 · Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456, CA 27 August 2004 A standard of dress imposed by an employer on its employees does not have to be identical, item for item for … Web16 Jan 1995 · Smith v Safeway plc; EAT (Pill J, Mrs R Chapman, Mr DAC Lambert); 9 Dec 1994. For the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a male delicatessen assistant was treated less favourably than a ...

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

Webtreat either sex less favourably (as per Smith v Safeway Plc [1996] 2 WLUK 311). 8. Similarly, the Court of Appeal more recently made clear that same treatment can nonetheless be less favourable in Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Service and Skills (Secretary of State for Education and others intervening) v Interim Web27 Aug 2004 · Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456, CA. 27 August 2004. A standard of dress imposed by an employer on its employees does not have to be identical, item for item for men and women, but it must require the same overall standard of conventionality of both sexes. Tesco v Wilson [2000] EAT 749/98. rowing weight training

Sex discrimination: Pony-tail ban was discriminatory - XpertHR

WebSmith v Safeway PLC [1996] ICR 868 and Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops Ltd. [1977] IRLR 360 applied. 2. The “hair length rule” read in the context of Article 3 as a whole was not discriminatory and was not therefore in breach of Section 15 of the Constitution. The rule was concerned with Web1 Jun 2016 · On the other hand in Smith v Safeway plc (The Times Law Report 5th March, 1996), although the code operated by Safeway meant that the particular detailed rules applicable to men and women employees were different, their overall effect was broadly the same, in that both men and women’s dress codes required conventionality in appearance. Web16 Feb 1996 · In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an … rowing wear