Personal hygiene in the workplace has long caused problems, mainly because it is an issue that nobody wishes to tackle, even though everyone is happy to complain where a problem exists, even to the extent of dropping hints, to the extent of even leaving bars of soap or cans of deodorant in a prominent place.   

Eventually the time will come, when something has to be said, because otherwise the problem will persist.  This can be particularly pressing depending on the nature of the employer’s business, for example food manufacture and/or handling, environmental health, close contact with customers and/or clients such as in the care industry or cleaning etc.  

No matter how pressing the issue, managers always find the problem extraordinarily difficult to deal with because there appears to be a taboo about raising such issues.  

Quite clearly it is not a disciplinary issue, as to proceed down this road would be extremely harsh in the circumstances, but does not take any account of the possibility that the reason for the smell in the first place might be related to a disability which soap and water does not cure.  

In fact when you examine the situation in some depth, the situation could become far more serious than merely worrying about aromas.   

For example, a collective grievance by employees against a fellow employee who has a less than savoury smell, could also be considered a breach of the duty of care owed by the employer to the employees under the health and safety at work legislation.  This could be particularly acute if there is a lack of ventilation in the workplace, which would also be a breach of health and safety legislation.  And what about the situation if the offending employee has a fixed belief that using deodorant and/or perfumes is a breach of that belief, so as to give rise to a claim under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 or the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland.  Similarly, in respect of immigrant employees, who in accordance with the customs associated with their racial background, consume food, which through the process of perspiration emits a powerful odour. Do subsequent complaints or insensitive handling result in potential racial harassment, particularly if others who have eaten garlic have not been similarly dealt with.  

Could the employer actually be to blame, when the matter is looked at, particularly in the case of an employee who might cycle or run to work every day, only to find that there are no shower facilities, which in itself could be a breach of health, safety and welfare regulations?  

An employer faced with this problem should investigate the situation in some detail before coming to some rash conclusion, which could lead to a claim.  UK employment law can be very misleading and so ELAS are here to guide you through the minefield of current legislation. 

Clearly such matters must be dealt with sensitively and employers should grasp the nettle and tackle the problem.  Not to do so could be dangerous, particularly where employers resort to dealing with such matters with hints and suggestions rather than a discussion with the person concerned.  

For further advice on this subject or any other areas of employment law, please do not hesitate to contact the Employment Law Advisory Services Consultancy Team on 0161 785 2000.