Visible rank on uniforms: practical necessity or privacy risk?

At Korean Air, a debate has emerged over the coloured jackets worn by cabin crew. The colour of the jacket indicates an employee’s rank. According to the trade union, displaying rank through a uniform is a violation of employees’ privacy. The issue will soon be presented to the South Korean Human Rights Commission. But can visible rank on uniforms really be considered a privacy violation? I discussed the issue with privacy lawyer Charlotte Meindersma and employment lawyer Suzanne Meijers.

Lees de Nederlandse versie van dit artikel rechtstreeks op Prettybusiness.nl.

At Korean Air, flight attendants currently wear a beige blazer, while assistant pursers and higher-ranking crew members wear a turquoise one. The airline has used this system for years, but it only recently sparked debate because of its planned merger with Asiana Airlines.

The chairman of the Asiana Airlines union argues that uniforms should not reveal an employee’s rank. The union fears that, after the merger, Asiana Airlines cabin crew will also have to wear uniforms that visibly indicate their position.

What is visible rank on uniforms?

Korean Air is far from the only organisation to use this approach. Many companies use uniforms to distinguish different roles within the organisation. At some McDonald’s restaurants, for example, managers wear a different uniform from regular employees. Similar distinctions are common in retail and the military.

The aviation industry also relies heavily on visible rank. Pilots wear stripes that immediately identify them as a trainee pilot, first officer or captain. Cabin crew supervisors often wear a slightly different uniform as well. In many airlines, a name badge, rank insignia or subtle design detail shows an employee’s role.

The reason is straightforward: passengers and colleagues can immediately identify the person in charge. If a problem arises, everyone knows who to approach.

Visible rank comes in many forms

According to privacy lawyer Charlotte Meindersma, there is nothing inherently wrong with making someone’s role or rank visible.

“A uniform may always indicate a person’s role. For example, you can immediately see the difference between a pilot and a flight attendant. It is also perfectly acceptable to show someone’s rank. Think of the stripes worn by pilots or the insignia on police uniforms,” says Meindersma.

Employment lawyer Suzanne Meijers agrees and regularly sees this in practice.

“In the Netherlands, rank is often displayed through insignia such as stripes, stars and piping within the police and armed forces. In the judiciary, judges wear robes that differ from those worn by lawyers or public prosecutors. Another example is a badge indicating that a train conductor or forest ranger has additional legal powers, such as issuing fines or making arrests.”

When does visible rank on uniforms become a privacy issue?

Nevertheless, the union believes privacy is a valid argument. According to its complaint, displaying rank also reveals an employee’s promotion status. This could create psychological pressure among staff and may also infringe upon the principle of equality.

Meindersma emphasises that privacy and personal data are two different concepts. A person’s rank can become personal data when it can be linked to a specific individual. However, the fact that something qualifies as personal data does not automatically mean that using it violates the GDPR.

“A person’s rank or promotion status is not personal data in itself. However, once it can be combined with other identifying characteristics, it may become personal data. For example, if a customer does not know someone’s name but can describe them based on their rank, hair colour, hairstyle, approximate age, height and build, that information could identify a specific individual.”

Why visible rank on uniforms can be justified

When an employer requires employees to wear a uniform or company clothing, they are exercising their managerial authority. However, that authority also has its limits.

“The boundary between an employer’s right to give instructions and an employee’s personal interests mainly depends on whether distinctions are being made. If so, the question is whether those distinctions are objectively justified, for example because of safety, recognisability or supervision,” says Meijers.

According to Meindersma, when privacy is involved, employers must balance their own interests against those of their employees. An employer may have a legitimate reason to make someone’s role or rank visible.

“The key question is whether it is necessary. If displaying rank no longer serves a useful purpose but does affect employees’ privacy, then the line has been crossed.”

Are different coloured uniforms really necessary?

This raises the question of whether different coloured uniforms are actually necessary. Both Meijers and Meindersma specialise in Dutch law, so they can only assess the South Korean situation from a distance. Based on her experience, Meijers does not expect this would easily become a legal issue under Dutch employment law.

“If employees are treated differently, there can sometimes be an objective justification. The question is whether it is necessary for safety, recognisability or supervision. Personally, I do not think so. The same objective could also be achieved with a badge, pin or similar item that distinguishes functions and ranks.”

Meindersma also stresses that employers should always make a careful assessment.

“There must be a legitimate reason for displaying someone’s rank through their clothing. Making supervisors or managers recognisable is perfectly reasonable. Different functions or departments are also unlikely to cause problems. Only when the distinction becomes too minor and no longer serves a meaningful purpose should you question whether it is still reasonable.”

In Europe, the debate is usually about something else

The fact that this debate is taking place in South Korea is striking. Similar discussions are rare in Europe. According to Meindersma, complaints usually focus on the obligation to wear a uniform or on dress code rules that employees consider too restrictive, rather than on visible rank.

Meijers sees the same pattern in her own practice. Most disputes about workplace clothing concern equal treatment. Examples include headscarves, mandatory skirts and other dress code requirements that employees challenge on legal grounds.

I am particularly interested to see how this case develops. If visible rank on uniforms is ultimately considered a privacy issue, the consequences could be far-reaching. Companies across South Korea may have to reconsider how they distinguish roles through uniforms. As soon as new developments emerge, you will be able to read about them here on PrettybusinessWorld.

Kind regards,

Aileen