But they do not have the right to arbitrarily change the rules after the fact.
Its one thing to inform prospective new hires that visible tats are not allowed. Its another thing entirely to tell somebody who was hired as a driver 20 years ago with a visible tat on his arm that he must now start wearing long sleeved shirts just because some cubicle-dweller got a wild hair up his butt about tats and decided to make a new rule.
Otherwise, the company would be free to start dictating all manner of personal appearance standards to us. Can you imagine what it would be like if the people who ran this company were allowed to dictate to us how our hair must be styled, or what color of makeup that women had to wear?
I think this issue is complicated by the fact that the lion share of the drivers are hired from the part time ranks, during which time they aren't prohibited from displaying tattoos.
The same issue applies to jewelry, hair styles, and facial hair.
I have a hard time believing that anybody outside of an off street hire is not familiar, or didn't notice the appearance guidelines for UPS drivers.
These guidelines were outlined for me 17 years ago when I made the transition from part time to full time driver.
Fortunately I never considered any type of body art or growing a mullet.
I may have sported a goatee in recent years, but it's not allowed, so be it.
For those considering these forms of "expression" realize your actions will come with a degree of consequences.
I don't believe for a second that any panel or arbitrator will protect anybodies right to violate the personal appearance guidelines, past practice or not.
But good luck to all who care to challenge it.
It won't be me, I have bigger fish to fry.