Posted By Ian Mycroft I would also like some clarification on the issue of Health and Safety Law conflicting with Human Rights. My personal view is, that if some one does not want to wear their PPE, no matter what it may be, when there is a real risk of serious injury, then that person is careless as to whether they are injured or not. If someone is careless for their own safety then they are in breach of section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and therefore committing a criminal offence, I would consider it reasonable for criminal activity at work to be gross misconduct, take it from there.

Posted By Ashley Williams As already stated, it is section 7 that applies in this case, although if the employer were to ignore what was going on as some do, then there is a case for section 2.2c lack of supervision been used against the employer, if they were to take no action. I wonder however why this person is not wearing their PPE foot ware? Is it because they are a poor fit, or uncomfortable PPE should be suitable for the wearer as well as to protect the wearer. A fact some employers fail to realise. More information would be needed however to establish if this is the case. Ashley

Posted By John Webster Sorry, Jim. I thought my previous reference to the following provision of the Human Rights Act would answer the question of incompatibility 6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if- (a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or (b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions. (3) In this section "public authority" includes- (a) a court or tribunal, and (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature So does this scotch the worries about incompatibilities - Health & Safety at Work Act Rules OK - or are there deeper considerations for the lawyers to argue over?

Posted By Raymond Rapp I will add my penny worth, although I am not sure about this Human Rights business. I work in a safety critical industry and on a couple of ocassions the shoes supplied by my company (Dr martins not steel caps) has been discussed. First they are not in my opinion strictly PPE, rather they are uniform. Why? Provided a suitable rubber soled alternative are worn they will provide the required protection needed. The company insist that they are black ie uniform. Sometimes a Doctors note may be required but not normally.

Posted By Edward H So far the responses have all addressed the issue from the HSWA duties point of view.... However Frank's original question related to human rights and therefore by implication the Human Rights Act [2000?]. Which particular article under that act do you think the reluctant wearers might invoke to claim the "right" to not wear PPE? The right of Association [with damaged feet?] The right to humane treatment? The right to privacy, is the best I can come up with. That is a qualified right and can be breached if the reason is lawful [compliance with HSWA etc.] and proportionate [the result of a considered risk assessment and suitable for the wearer]. I can see no breach; just enforce your reasonable rules fairly and evenly....

Posted By Philip McAleenan John, I would be interested in having more details of the case you referred to, especially the full legal decision, (a link that will take me to the decision will suffice if you don't have the write up) regards, Philip