FWC findings for beard that broke the rules
The Fair Work Commission has upheld a decision to sack a BHP employee whose beard became a safety issue.
Truck driver James Felton was dismissed on grounds that he “made a deliberate and well informed decision not to comply with the policy” of no beards at the Olympic Dam mine.
The clean shaven policy was brought in by BHP several years ago to ensure workers’ facial hair would not interfere with the use of Respirator Protective Equipment (RPE).
Staff wore RPEs to guard against silica dust and diesel particulate.
The leadership team at the mine near Roxby Downs extended the clean shaven requirement for the whole workforce, including laboratories, from January 2014.
Felton had a respirator fit test on 22 September 2014, at which time he was told he had to be clean shaven, but Felton said he would not shave his beard.
He has worn his facial hair in a long goatee for years, and said in a show-cause letter that his beard “is who I am and my liberty of right”.
He was told to shave numerous times, but continued turning up to work with his goatee intact.
Felton claimed that as the clean-shaven policy may not have been developed in accordance with the relevant workplace health and safety laws, or in consultation with employees or workplace health and safety representatives, it was not valid.
He was sacked and took the case to the Fair Work Commission, which disagreed with the stance.
Commissioner Hampton found that the clean-shaven rule was lawful and reasonable.
“Even if there were some deficiencies in the consultation surrounding the application of the full clean-shaven policy... the policy itself is in my view a reasonable and appropriate one given the circumstances of the operations of BHP Billiton and the potential hazards in the mine,” he said.
“There is an impact upon individual rights and preferences in the adoption of a clean shaven policy of the kind in operation at BHP Billiton.
“However, in light of the actual hazards, the nature and size of the mine and its workforce, and the impact of the relevant WHS obligations, the interests of the protection of safety and health become more important than personal preference and a desire to obtain an appearance, even one held so strongly by Mr Felton.
“It was his right to maintain his appearance however this was in conflict with a reasonable and lawful direction and for reasons outlined above, made future employment for him at BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam untenable.”