Clothes may or may not make the man, but they can certainly make the difference as to whether the individual is safe at work or not. Whether it be a blacksmith’s leather apron, hairnets in factories, or an astronaut’s space suit, protection from the hazards of the job has a high profile when it comes to outfits designed to help manage workplace health and safety risks.

For example, a great deal of effort and energy has gone into improving the protective capability of clothing worn by Australian scientists working in the Antarctic, and the recommended wear for such assignments has undergone a dramatic evolution over the past century of work in the extreme climates of polar regions. 

The challenge was that the work often required staff to undertake physical activities strenuous enough to mean that 75% of the body’s heat would be generated internally by their physical exertion, despite the freezing temperatures. The clothing had to allow the release of excess heat into the air, as well as provide protection from the cold.

Fabrics and designs used have benefited from hundreds of hours of experiments in custom-made wind tunnels and climate chambers in health research institutes, and the benefits have flowed over to the wider community, for example, in skiwear and winter attire generally. 

 

Disputes over uniforms and protective clothing

Disputes regularly arise about work uniforms and clothing requirements. 

For example, an issue arose when firefighters and some other workers experienced rashes, dermatitis, and other skin reactions in response to a fire-retardant chemical that had been used to treat the fabric of the new uniforms they were required to wear on fire calls. 

The need to dress for comfort in the face of climatic conditions is a perennial bone of contention. The question of whether to allow personnel to wear short-sleeved shirts in tropical locations – where protection from the sun and mosquitoes might make long-sleeved shirts more appropriate – simmers on, bubbling up from time to time.

This conflict can only be resolved by a careful balancing of the particular requirements of the job, for example, the opportunities to take advantage of shade, the season, and day-to-day weather fluctuations.

An issue of a different kind altogether concerns the wearing of clothing dictated by particular religious affiliations, for example, a turban worn by a Sikh man or a niqab (a veil concealing the face from the eyes down) worn by a Muslim woman. 

A Sikh man’s turban has emerged as a dilemma at times when jobs require the wearing of a helmet or other headgear incompatible with a turban, for example, by construction workers or motorcycle-riding postal delivery employees. 

Face veils have been the subject of media attention regarding staff working in schools, as well as students who express a desire to adopt face-covering attire. This is usually less of a safety issue than an issue of communication and effectiveness on the job, though communication may be an element of job safety, in many situations.

Public opinion in recent years has rejected workplace dress codes that require women to wear high-heeled shoes and otherwise dress in ways designed to appeal to male clients and customers. The focus has shifted to garments and footwear that are comfortable and practical.

 

The bottom line

Workplace dress codes must support safety, practicality, and fairness. Whether addressing climate, hazards, cultural attire, or personal comfort, employers must ensure dress requirements are:

  • based on risk and job needs,

  • aligned with WHS duties,

  • inclusive and non‑discriminatory,

  • clearly communicated and consistently applied.

A well‑designed dress code is not just about appearance—it is a vital part of keeping workers safe, comfortable, and respected.