Whether an employer is entitled to forbid employees from getting a tattoo?

A factory owner in Dongguan refused to hire a person with a tattoo, because she believed that a person with a tattoo might affect the overall atmosphere of the factory, as having a tattoo gives people the first impression that such person is either involved in underworld activities or disobedient. The factory owner’s words sparked a heated debate. Some people believe that the company has the right to decide its hiring standards based on its own judgment criteria, while others believe that tattoos, hairstyles, clothing, etc. fall within the scope of personal image management, and the company has no right to interfere. The dispute lies in the appropriate extent of the company’s management over its employees.

Tattoos originated from ancient religious ceremonies. In ancient China, tattoos were commonly seen in the totem beliefs of ethnic minorities. Among the Han people, tattoos were widely used as a symbol of punishment. Although Yue Fei’s tattoo represented his ambitions, such usage is rare. After China’s reform and opening up, tattoos is widely used as a symbol of personal characteristic.

In summary, Chinese has a negative perception of tattoos. However, currently, the explicit prohibition regulations regarding tattoos mainly target specific groups of people or specific industries. For example, the “Measures for the Governance of Minors’ Tattoos” stipulates that no enterprise, organization, or individual shall provide tattoo services to minors, nor shall they coerce, entice, or instigate minors to get tattoos. Another example is that the “Special Standards for Physical Examinations in Civil Servant Recruitment” stipulates that there shall be no tattoos on the whole body for positions in public security organs, prisons, etc.; for other positions, if the tattoo cannot be covered by clothing, it is also considered unqualified. Additionally, the “Quality Specifications for Railway Transport Services” stipulates that “there shall be no tattoos on the exposed parts of the bodies of train staffs.” Moreover, service industries such as airlines, banks, and hotels often have similar requirements. In consideration of safety or hygiene, industries such as hospitals and food factories impose restrictions or bans on tattoos. This is also the fundamental reason that the employers could be supported by the judicial authorities in the very few cases of dismissal due to tattoos (such as the case No. 1069 in the initial civil judgment of Kunming in 2013).

For enterprises other than those mentioned above, if they regard having a tattoo as a reason for serious violation of internal rules and regulations that can lead to dismissal, they may be suspected of employment discrimination and have high risks. If an enterprise has a low tolerance for tattoos and hopes to impose restrictions, the following measures can be taken into consideration.

(1) In the labor discipline regulations, enterprises could advocate civilized business etiquette, require appropriate dressing and grooming, and list tattoos, exaggerated hair coloring, and exaggerated hairstyles in the prohibited categories.

(2) For enterprises with a lot of external communication, such as trading enterprises, in order to deter employees from getting tattoos, it is recommended to list behaviors such as exposed tattoos as objects of punishment (such as a warning) in the penalty provisions of the rules and regulations.

(3) When an individual case occurs, it is necessary to comprehensively consider whether to impose a penalty and what kind of penalty to impose based on its internal rules and regulations, combined with the characteristics of the employee’s position, the degree of tattoo exposure, the existence of complaints, and other circumstances. If necessary, the enterprise can also consider to adjust the employee’s position.