<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE Publisher PUBLIC "-//MetaPress//DTD MetaPress 2.0//EN" "http://public.metapress.com/dtd/MPRESS/MetaPressv2.dtd">
<Publisher>
	<PublisherInfo>
		<PublisherName>Baywood Publishing Company</PublisherName>
	</PublisherInfo>
	<Journal>
		<JournalInfo JournalType="Journals">
			<JournalPrintISSN>1055-7512</JournalPrintISSN>
			<JournalElectronicISSN>1541-3799</JournalElectronicISSN>
			<JournalTitle>Journal of Individual Employment Rights</JournalTitle>
			<JournalCode>BWIE</JournalCode>
			<JournalID>300324</JournalID>
			<JournalURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&amp;id=300324</JournalURL>
		</JournalInfo>
		<Volume>
			<VolumeInfo>
				<VolumeNumber>6</VolumeNumber>
			</VolumeInfo>
			<Issue>
				<IssueInfo IssueType="Regular">
					<IssueNumberBegin>2</IssueNumberBegin>
					<IssueNumberEnd>2</IssueNumberEnd>
					<IssueSupplement>0</IssueSupplement>
					<IssuePartStart>0</IssuePartStart>
					<IssuePartEnd>0</IssuePartEnd>
					<IssueSequence>000006000219970101</IssueSequence>
					<IssuePublicationDate>
						<CoverDate Year="1997" Month="1" Day="1"/>
						<CoverDisplay>Number 2 / 1997-98</CoverDisplay>
					</IssuePublicationDate>
					<IssueID>B4BM56J2PQAQ</IssueID>
					<IssueURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=issue&amp;id=B4BM56J2PQAQ</IssueURL>
				</IssueInfo>
				<Article ArticleType="Original">
					<ArticleInfo Free="No" ESM="No">
						<ArticleDOI>10.2190/8J6F-R38N-VRC5-LTPY</ArticleDOI>
						<ArticlePII>8J6FR38NVRC5LTPY</ArticlePII>
						<ArticleSequenceNumber>2</ArticleSequenceNumber>
						<ArticleTitle Language="En">Dress Codes and Arbitration</ArticleTitle>
						<ArticleFirstPage>103</ArticleFirstPage>
						<ArticleLastPage>117</ArticleLastPage>
						<ArticleHistory>
							<RegistrationDate>20020509</RegistrationDate>
							<ReceivedDate>20020509</ReceivedDate>
							<Accepted>20020509</Accepted>
							<OnlineDate>20020509</OnlineDate>
						</ArticleHistory>
						<FullTextFileName>8J6FR38NVRC5LTPY.pdf</FullTextFileName>
						<FullTextURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&amp;id=8J6FR38NVRC5LTPY</FullTextURL>
						<Composite>2</Composite>
					</ArticleInfo>
					<ArticleHeader>
						<AuthorGroup>
							<Author AffiliationID="A1">
								<GivenName>Donald</GivenName>
								<Initials>J.</Initials>
								<FamilyName>Petersen</FamilyName>
								<Degrees/>
								<Roles/>
							</Author>
							<Affiliation AFFID="A1">
								<OrgDivision/>
								<OrgName>Loyola University, Chicago</OrgName>
								<OrgAddress/>
							</Affiliation>
						</AuthorGroup>
						<Abstract Language="En">Personal grooming and dress code issues are not disappearing. Generally, employers attempt to justify rules regarding personal appearance as necessary to promote its image or for health or safety reasons. Employees may find such rules as inhibiting their own notions of personal freedom and expression. An emerging question arising out of such rules is the degree of proof required by arbitrators to establish the necessity for promulgating them. Such proof appears to be more often required in image cases to those involving the safety and health of employees. Public sector and male-female dress code issues are also reviewed in this article.</Abstract>
					</ArticleHeader>
				</Article>
			</Issue>
		</Volume>
	</Journal>
</Publisher>
