"Tattoo and body piercing rule unreasonable: need to show adverse effect"

[Tank Troll]

One of my husband's best buds from Ops Apollo and Athena, is very inked up.  I mean sleeves and chest and even the scalp..

He's probably a sgt in the RCD's now. *was a mcpl when we talked to him last* I know I wouldn't want anyone else next to me in a fire fight. I respect that man highly, and I know other people do too.

If it is who I'm thinking of then I agree with you about the fire team partner. I've got no issues with any of it but when and why did shrapnel become a fashion accessory

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If it is who I'm thinking of then i agree with you about the fire team partner but he doesn't have any on his head. I got now issues with any of it but when and why did shrapnel become a fashion accessory

 

[mariomike]

The arbitrator wrote: "I accept, then, the hospital’s assertions that some patients might have a more negative first impression of a tattooed or pierced hospital staff member than they would of a staff member who was not tattooed or pierced. I also accept that the lack of complaints does not necessarily mean that there is no uneasiness felt by some patients. What I cannot accept is the hospital’s argument that there is a connection between these feelings and health care outcomes. The hospital provided no evidence whatsoever for this assertion, which seems to be based only on the personal opinions of [the Manager] and possibly other senior managers."
http://lawofwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OttawaHospital.pdf

According to the employer, “at least some patients are put off by health care providers sporting tattoos and piercings, and that if the hospital can save any patient some anxiety by requiring employees to cover tattoos and remove piercings, that is a small sacrifice for the employee.” 

It was pointed out that, "This was a unionized ( CUPE ) workplace, so the union was able to file a grievance under the collective agreement challenging the new policy. No human rights argument was raised. A unionized employer cannot impose dress and appearance codes based on the personal views and biases of managers."

"Non-union employers can usually impose whatever dress or appearance code they wish, subject to any human rights issues that could arise. Unionized workers clearly have a greater right to personal expression at work."

Management lost the arbitration, but their personal "views and biases" ( likely shared by other employers ) are on record.

I read some discussion of what effect, if any, it might have on Emergency Services applicants.

There is a recent S.O.P. where I used to work, "Tattoos depicting nudity, obscenity, racial, sexual, political or social bias must be covered. Tattoos must not contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code or the City of Toronto Harassment policies."

Although an applicant can not be legally disqualified for having a visible tattoo, the S.O.P. does not necessarily reflect the opinion of management. It is something they had to agree to with the union to avoid arbitration.

It has been unofficially suggested that candidates ( applicants ) waiting to go in front of a departmental oral board ( an interview panel of "managers and other senior managers" aka Commanders and Chiefs ), and probies probationary paramedics trying to stay off the radar, may wish to consider waiting until after being hired, and off probation, before getting ( or adding ) tattoos that will be visible in a short-sleeved shirt.