Hot Weather TOC Uniforms

[styles]

To be honest, I forgot that not all uniform is branded, and I forgot that some PPE is! I think free sunscreen would be appreciated overall.

I wonder if it's provided in hotter (well, more UV-prone) countries?

A quick Google search suggests it is actively encouraged in Australia.

 

[Cesarcollie]

PPE, or indeed uniform, doesn't need to be company-branded. Else every pair of gloves, wellies, steel toe-capped boots, trousers, skirts, hi-viz, etc would have to bear company branding. If Grand Central decided tomorrow that their uniform was going to be logo-less plain colour navy and orange shirts and trousers/skirts/shorts, they could legitimately provide that as uniform. When my employer gave me gloves, hard hat, boots, and hi-viz, they were considered PPE despite not having the company logo on.

If a company had staff working outside in the sun all day, I'm pretty sure they could give staff suncream as PPE and not be liable for tax. The HMRC tax manual isn't that prescriptive to list suncream specifically, but I can't see how it could be argued against (and I don't think even HMRC would want the bad PR of appearing to 'ban suncream' for staff working outside 8 hours a day). I would add though that to avoid personal use coming into play, an employer would be best off keeping the suncream on-site. We wouldn't consider hand sanitising gel a benefit-in-kind for tax purposes, so I'm not sure we should could suncream any differently.

I believe to be tax exempt it should carry at the very least a small tag with company logo or name.

 

[styles]

I believe to be tax exempt it should carry at the very least a small tag with company logo or name.

Simply not true.

If you've got a source for that, happy to be corrected.

But there's no way the NHS is branding their bottles of hand gel, or Network Rail are stamping all their gloves. I've been given hard hats, hi Viz, gloves, boots, all non-branded.

Similarly been given navy blue trousers and plain hi-viz working for a wholesalers.

All tax exempt.

It's not possible to brand sun cream, and branding the bottle wouldn't really prevent personal use in the same way a branded polo shirt might.

In fact the RSSB safety document for hi-viz (RIS-3279-TOM) says logos are not required.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Simply not true.

If you've got a source for that, happy to be corrected.

But there's no way the NHS is branding their bottles of hand gel, or Network Rail are stamping all their gloves. I've been given hard hats, hi Viz, gloves, boots, all non-branded.

Similarly been given navy blue trousers and plain hi-viz working for a wholesalers.

All tax exempt.

It's not possible to brand sun cream, and branding the bottle wouldn't really prevent personal use in the same way a branded polo shirt might.

In fact the RSSB safety document for hi-viz (RIS-3279-TOM) says logos are not required.

sorry I wasn’t referring to PPE - just uniform clothing.

 

[43066]

If a driver is allowed to wear a cowboy hat of such magnificence as the one I encountered at Basingstoke recently, I can't see any reason why it would compromise the ability of a guard to perform their role.

Probably not so much a case of being “allowed” to wear it, as him choosing to wear it and nobody wanting the inevitable unpleasant confrontation that would result from pulling him up on it.

 

[bahnause]

I agree with you 100% - see any of my comments on uniforms in the past! To reiterate uniforms need to be:

• Practical
• sensible
• easy care but hard wearing
• mitigate the effects of the season ( waterproof in winter/light in summer)
• Decent quality fabrics
• Easy to replace
• come in a sensible range of cuts/sizes
• incorporate the demands of front line users ( NOT one type fits all)
• modern
• sober colours

Unfortunately, all these reasonable requirements are rarely implemented because they make uniforms more expensive. Experience also shows that scruffy looking employees also look scruffy in uniform.

As the mandatory wearing of uniforms in my country also involves other requirements under labor law (suitable changing rooms with appropriate ventilation, etc.), the wearing of uniforms is only mandatory for personnel with direct customer contact.

I therefore don't have to and prefer to wear my own comfortable personal clothing. I can't stand the cheap polyester blend of our shirts in summer, for example. It feels like wearing a garbage bag, with the corresponding moisture and itchiness underneath. It's very distracting and probably not safe.

As for other goodies like sunscreen or hearing protection: of course the company is not obliged to give these to staff free of charge. However, it makes sense in terms of long term health protection. I don't have to answer any questions from customers during my break either, but I still do it if I can. It's always a question of the level at which the employer and employee want to work together. You don't have to do everything you're allowed to do and you don't have to refrain from doing everything you don't have to do.

 

[Krokodil]

As for other goodies like sunscreen or hearing protection: of course the company is not obliged to give these to staff free of charge.

I don't know about Swiss laws, but if an employer failed to provide hearing protection to someone working in a noisy environment over here, they'd be likely to get sued.

 

[bahnause]

I don't know about Swiss laws, but if an employer failed to provide hearing protection to someone working in a noisy environment over here, they'd be likely to get sued.

Even noise levels that are legal on paper can damage your hearing.

 

[muz379]

Even noise levels that are legal on paper can damage your hearing.

The Health and Safety executive has a lot of guidance on controlling risks from noise , generally when an employer is risk assessing noise it is considered good practice to look at the combined noise in a shift not just peak noise levels . And the legal limits are based on this combined noise level not just a peak level .


I know from one workplace which deals with heavy equipment which there is no practical way to reduce the noise of that there are other control measures that can be employed as well like limiting time employees spend in certain areas or completing certain tasks .

 

[dub]

sorry I wasn’t referring to PPE - just uniform clothing.

I think you get tax relief if you have to wash your uniform at home, not sure about any other exemptions but I'm far from an expert: https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/uniforms-work-clothing-and-tools

 

[styles]

I think you get tax relief if you have to wash your uniform at home, not sure about any other exemptions but I'm far from an expert: https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/uniforms-work-clothing-and-tools

You can claim relief on the cost of the uniform itself, though in practice this mainly applies to replacing lost or damaged uniform since employers tend to give their first set of uniform for free (nothing actually prohibits them from charging for it apart from minimum wage laws, or if it is PPE). The issue is that anything gaining a tax deduction needs to be 'wholly and exclusively' for business needs. So if your work dress code requires wearing say black trousers or skirts, you can't claim the cost of going to Asda and buying some black trousers, because these are basically personal clothes which you happen to wear to work. If your employer said right you need this specific blue and orange patterned polo shirt, you lost it and had to pay to replace it, you could claim tax relief on that as it's clearly uniform and you wouldn't expect to see people wearing it on their day off (though, I have seen a fair few people donning work polos and t-shirts on their overseas beach holidays!)

This is the general rule for all tax deductible expenses. I bought a Bluetooth headset through my company the other day, because I need to block out the background noise when I'm on Teams calls. I don't use them for any personal use so that's fine. I couldn't expense say a driving test for a cat B car licence though, because I gain a clear personal benefit from having that licence.

 

[Cesarcollie]

I think you get tax relief if you have to wash your uniform at home, not sure about any other exemptions but I'm far from an expert: https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/uniforms-work-clothing-and-tools

You can claim relief on the cost of the uniform itself, though in practice this mainly applies to replacing lost or damaged uniform since employers tend to give their first set of uniform for free (nothing actually prohibits them from charging for it apart from minimum wage laws, or if it is PPE). The issue is that anything gaining a tax deduction needs to be 'wholly and exclusively' for business needs. So if your work dress code requires wearing say black trousers or skirts, you can't claim the cost of going to Asda and buying some black trousers, because these are basically personal clothes which you happen to wear to work. If your employer said right you need this specific blue and orange patterned polo shirt, you lost it and had to pay to replace it, you could claim tax relief on that as it's clearly uniform and you wouldn't expect to see people wearing it on their day off (though, I have seen a fair few people donning work polos and t-shirts on their overseas beach holidays!)

This is the general rule for all tax deductible expenses. I bought a Bluetooth headset through my company the other day, because I need to block out the background noise when I'm on Teams calls. I don't use them for any personal use so that's fine. I couldn't expense say a driving test for a cat B car licence though, because I gain a clear personal benefit from having that licence.

Yes I agree. However the point I was making is that when an Employer provides uniform as is normally the case, the garments have to include a company logo or a ‘tax tag’ (a small tag which contains the name or logo) otherwise HMRC takes the view they could be worn for personal use, and thus become a taxable benefit. (This rule doesn’t apply to PPE though).

 

[styles]

Yes I agree. However the point I was making is that when an Employer provides uniform as is normally the case, the garments have to include a company logo or a ‘tax tag’ (a small tag which contains the name or logo) otherwise HMRC takes the view they could be worn for personal use, and thus become a taxable benefit. (This rule doesn’t apply to PPE though).

They don't have to include a logo though.

They just have to clearly be required wholly and exclusively for work.

 

[DaveTM]

Uniforms are one of those economies of scale I hope we realise when Great British Railways begins to bite. I mean, why on earth do we currently have 30 different TOCs employing 30 different uniform design and procurement teams to provide 30 different CoRpOrAtElY BrAnDeD uniforms? I also really hope that emphasis is placed on the practical side, rather than on corporate identity.

Back to "Bob" at Horsham (who to us drivers is a very reliable and trusted platform colleague). His personal demonstration echoes the collective demonstration next door in the South West where a collective effort by drivers to obtain and wear skirts resulted in management backing down and allowing appropriate summer uniform of shorts for drivers.

Meanwhile, our uniform gurus have recently "created" a new uniform. It doesn't vary between the platform staff who have to endure standing around in winter and the drivers who have to work in a travelling greenhouse. Whilst we drivers asked for cargo trousers and cargo shorts so that we could carry all our keys, torches, etc, without suffering heat rashes in summer, we instead got a repeat of polyester trousers with minimal pockets, and a NEW COLOUR FLASH ON THE BREAST THAT MENTIONS ALL FOUR SUB BRANDS. I am reminded of the end chapters of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the Golgafrinchan Ark Ship 'B' folk have created a committee to design the wheel. After many meetings the committee are dealing with the details like the colour, having already decided the wheel will be square...

 

[Bedwyn32]

The TOC I work for provides sun screen for anyone who wants it. But it's only SPF23. So I get my own.

 

[Sakuradori]

OT but Royal Mail issued shorts (30 years back?) for summer but local delivery offices soon had unofficial competitions about who could wear them the longest through the winter. Definitely must have been some Christmas post delivered by short wearers!

I recall hearing of some TFL drivers having a similar competition that's lasted a good decade so far.

My TOC has talked about summer uniforms for a few years now, but at this point I'm starting to imagine that they're waiting until GBR becomes a more concrete thing. No shorts here either, only double-lined wool trousers, and no polo shirts. Great in winter, not in summer.

 

[6Gman]

To be honest I couldn’t care less as a passenger what the staff are wearing. I want a reliable service and happy staff so in my opinion they should be able to wear whatever they want to make their work day better as long as it is clear they are staff and they are safe completing their duties.

An important point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2025 ==

OT but Royal Mail issued shorts (30 years back?) for summer but local delivery offices soon had unofficial competitions about who could wear them the longest through the winter. Definitely must have been some Christmas post delivered by short wearers!

I have been told (by postal staff) that many prefer shorts in rainy or snowy weather because they can dry bare legs better than wringing out cold, wet trousers.

 

[dk1]

The TOC I work for provides sun screen for anyone who wants it. But it's only SPF23. So I get my own.

I only want one that smells of coconut.

 

[styles]

I have been told (by postal staff) that many prefer shorts in rainy or snowy weather because they can dry bare legs better than wringing out cold, wet trousers.

I'm of a similar view as a mountaineer to be honest. Ticks are a risk with bare skin, but otherwise I quite like the unsexy shorts-and-gaiters combo. My skin dries quickly and I prevent water getting to my feet where it's a problem. I of course always carry layers to cover up if needed, but I actually prefer base layer even in the rain, and take a towel to dry-off and spare tee to put on at the end. If I wear even an expensive well-ventilated hardshell, I'm sweating, even where I live in Scotland, so I'm not actually any drier for wearing it - it's just sweat instead of rain.

Sure if it gets to winter I need protection from the snow and ice, but I'd hope my postie wasn't crawling on their hands and knees and axing their way up driveways.

Yeah posties might look 'hard as nails' wearing shorts all year round, but people have to remember they are basically exercising for the entirety of their shift. People run in shorts in the winter for similar reasons. If they had to wear trousers, some of them would be very uncomfortable.

 

[TheManBehind]

They don't have to include a logo though.

They just have to clearly be required wholly and exclusively for work.

Very useful point - I once managed to get several years of tax relief on civilian clothing for my workplace (a laboratory) on the basis that I wouldn't wear my personal clothes to work (even under a lab coat) where I played with concentrated acids and 1800 degree furnaces; besides that, my other suits were rather nicer than the ones I wore to work. I was surprised I got away with it to be honest!

 

[styles]

Very useful point - I once managed to get several years of tax relief on civilian clothing for my workplace (a laboratory) on the basis that I wouldn't wear my personal clothes to work (even under a lab coat) where I played with concentrated acids and 1800 degree furnaces; besides that, my other suits were rather nicer than the ones I wore to work. I was surprised I got away with it to be honest!

I think you were lucky there! https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim37910

The case of Mallalieu v Drummond [1983] 57 TC 330 (which is discussed in detail below) established that no deduction is available from trading profits for the costs of clothing which forms part of an 'everyday' wardrobe. This remains so even where the taxpayer can show that they only wear such clothing in the course of their profession. It is irrelevant that the person chooses not to wear the clothing in question on non-business occasions, the only question is whether the clothing might suitably be worn as part of a hypothetical person’s 'everyday' wardrobe.

Basically the test is mainly - could the clothes reasonably be considered the person's everyday clothes, even if they are reserved solely for work use; if so, not allowed. Something which is clearly PPE or uniform - go for it.

Mallalieu v Drummond was about a lawyer who tried to argue the clothes they wore to court were only bought because they wouldn't be allowed to enter court and make a plea on behalf of their client in their usual non-work clothes. They lost their case, on the basis that despite the clothes being reserved solely for work purposes, they were at the end of the day just everyday clothes so they could hypothetically form part of their 'everyday' wardrobe.

I suspect the tax inspectors deal with some interesting cases, e.g. acting. When does a costume become part of somebody's 'everyday' wardrobe. Logically (well, maybe) a captain's hat, stripey waistcoat with a parrot on the shoulder and a shirt with a hooked hand attached to one cuff would be a costume; while Jimmy Carr's suits or Rachel Riley's dresses for 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown would be everyday wardrobe (even recognising the gender inequality in that Carr could wear the same suit every day but if Riley wore the same dress every day she'd be flamed by the Daily Mail). But if I took on a role playing a mountain rescue volunteer and I bought some hiking trousers when I've never hiked a day in my life.. is that allowed?

 

[dgl]

ABBA wore outlandish clothes on stage for tax reasons, though I think we are straying a bit from the topic there.

 

[Wolfie]

I mean, I know it's been far too hot lately, but surely that's a bit far...?

Forbidding staff from wearing a hat is something I absolutely cannot understand. It's good protection, it helps prevent glare, and it really doesn't look unprofessional in the slightest (in fact it looks quite smart, depending on the type of hat*). If a driver is allowed to wear a cowboy hat of such magnificence as the one I encountered at Basingstoke recently, I can't see any reason why it would compromise the ability of a guard to perform their role.

*Apologies, must confess slight vested interest as someone who a) has had a weird obsession with the concept of guarding since forever and b) is extremely envious of one of the regular Slough dispatchers' GWR-branded baseball cap

Possibly indirect sex discrimination banning hats too - men are much more likely to have bald heads/thinning hair and thus suffer sun damage to the skin on their heads.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Possibly indirect sex discrimination banning hats too - men are much more likely to have bald heads/thinning hair and thus suffer sun damage to the skin on their heads.

It's just hats, rather than headwear that is banned though?

Turbans, Keffiyeh, and head scarves are still permitted? Aslef should get some branded head scarves or "tea towels" manufactured. Function before aesthetics, you'd look like my granny going to the bingo, but scalp safely away from the burning sun.

 

[muz379]

That's fraught with danger, some sun creams contain almond oil/ extract, which is obviously an allergen.

Easy to say "buy something else", but who's to say that won't have a different allergen? Best to make it the individual's responsibility to provide something suitable for themselves.

That really is such a minority issue that can be very easily worked around .

An employer I used to work at who provided sun cream for employees that had to spend a significant portion of their time at work outside ,all the dispensers for sun cream had the ingredients list clearly on display . One employee who had sensitive skin so couldn't use the generic provided stuff had dispensation to buy their own and their manager reimbursed them through the expenses system .