HICKEY POLICE

Eyebrows were raised among staff at Jamaica’s Parliament after an internal memo warned that employees showing up to work “with visible marks on their skin, colloquially referred to as ‘hickeys’, would face immediate disciplinary action.

The notice, issued by Clerk to the Houses Colleen Lowe, stated that effective April 28, any employee displaying such marks would be sent home and have the day deducted from their leave entitlement.

Lowe cited Paragraph 4.2.2 of the Public Sector Staff Orders, which mandates professional dress and appearance, emphasising that Parliament must uphold “the highest standards of professionalism and decorum”. She insisted that while personal lives remained private, staff are expected to reflect the dignity of the institution.

The Gleaner reached out to Parliament for a comment from Lowe but was told that she was out of office yesterday.

The directive, however, has been met with sharp criticism.

Veteran public sector union leader Helene Davis Whyte dismissed the move as “ridiculous”, arguing that it relies on assumptions about the nature of skin marks.

“I don’t know how that could be deemed to be something under whether the person is professional or not because you have to assume what it is. You don’t know. That’s an assumption,” she said, warning that misjudgments could even affect abuse survivors.

“It is just foolish, really ridiculous that somebody would commit that to writing,” Davis Whyte said, adding that a more thoughtful approach would be to provide guidance in a one-on-one interaction with staff.

“I don’t know if the staff in Gordon House are unionised, but if I were in their position, I would object because while she said she is not encroaching on private lives, that’s exactly what she is doing because you are making some assumptions of what I do in my private life,” Davis Whyte insisted, noting that she had never previously encountered a situation where workers were threatened with sanction for having a love bite.

Punctuated by near-uncontrollable laughter, attorney-at-law Gavin Goffe said he would be “curious to know how the ‘highest court of the land’ determines that was, in fact, a hickey”.

“It just boggles my mind that this is what would be occupying the highest court of the land,” Goffe reasoned, dismissing the assertion that a hickey was a breach of the dress code in the public sector.

“While I don’t subscribe to the view that the code needs to present an exhaustive list of what is expected, especially of people who are operating in a professional environment, I do think that the move towards imposing some kind of sanction is premature in this instance,” he said.

Goffe questioned how Parliament could verify if a mark is a hickey versus eczema or a mosquito bite and warned against overreach without evidence.

“Are we now going to get a forensic examiner to come and give an expert opinion on what this mark represents? That’s the very reason why we don’t want to have this kind of approach to a matter of this nature,” he cautioned.

Attorney-at-law Danielle Archer said the memo implied disciplinary action without a clear legal or procedural foundation. While recognising the value of professionalism, she noted that a review of Jamaican Public Service Staff Orders showed no explicit rule addressing personal bodily marks like hickeys. Archer stressed that unless such markings interfered with duties or breached established dress codes, they fall under personal rights and privacy.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com