Posted By Jan Moore I'd appreciate views on the provision of footwear for our catering staff in Brum. Many of our kitchens are older type ones with sound quarry tiled floors. Some years ago there were many slipping incidents and accidents. These have been reduced drastically by putting in place proper cleaning regimes with suitable cleaning materials. However there are still some instances and we are constantly reminded by the solicitors acting for claimants that there should be non slip floor surfaces laid. Looking realistically at the cost of this (several hundreds of thousands of pounds) I cannot believe this is the solution. Accidents I have investigated do not point to the tiled floor being the problem but it seems with the current no win no fee scenario that a possible damp tiled floor is the ideal suing tool.Solicitors automatically assume that kitchen and damp go together and I am sure suggest this to claimants who aren't going to argue if they will get a few quid. Other authorities have this problem and one chose to provide staff with safety 'non slip' shoes. They regret this very much. Should we resort to pressure from the unions to provide PPE (I really think this to be a mistake). We have always insisted that staff wear low heeled enclosed shoes but is this enough? We have some 3500 staff and the turnover of staff is quite high. Has anyone else been in this situation?

Posted By Ian Harper Jan, I have the same problem with around 2500 staff in LA kitchens and as I see it, it breaks down like this. I think you are correct in identifying it as a workplace issue. Not suitable flooring free from slippery surface. But the costs for all of our floors are a good demonstration of not reasonably practicable. This is also a long term solution that should be addressed when kitchens are revamped. Upgrading floors is not reasonably practicable and the suggestion of non-slip matting and such like sometime runs into problems with EHO's. Deep cleans are good, but when looking at our accidents we found a number of trends. 1. Spills were not always cleared up. This was more evident with kitchens with poor ventialtion and faulty equipment. Continous drips can't always be cleared up staright away. 2. Many accidents occured through wet cleaning after the shift. 3. Many accidents occured near steamers. This was interesting, if you have them. Door opens and a whole load of steams condenses and drips on the floor. Do you leave the door open to clean the spill before removing the contents? Most have a channel to take away such water but many were clogged up. We are also currently being found negligent for preventing a forseeable risk of injury in civil cases, at about £5000 per incident. We even lost a case where a women mopped the floor, put the mop away and then slipped on the patch she had just cleaned, breaking her arm! Anyway (I am now getting to the point), we have decided to progress the issue of slip resistant footwear on the following basis. When we stareted, our costs were to be around £40,000 + management time per year. We are currnetly being sued for £15,000 plus lost time etc. (As a comparison one floor change from quarry tile to a slip resistant surface would cost around £10,000 I think). We quickly decided to issue only to staff on quarry tile floor and then only to staff that work over 15 hours per week. This is pretty lame, but my excuse is reduced exposure to the risk. We have some people doing 30 minutes a day. This brings our costs to £12,500 pa In this way we target a vast bulk of people really at risk. The staff there the majority of the day at the sharp end. Our supplier has been helpful and will deliver directly to kitchens and the qualtiy and price of footwear was quite honestly a welcome suprise. We do have two big issues to overcome. Our high staff turnover and what happens when we only issues to some people. I have looked a lot into this issue and a lot of people go as close as possible in specifying PPE without acutally doing it so they don't have to pay for it. It is then unenforceable and no protection exists. I hope this gives you some help, if not email me otherwise I'll rant on and this will be the longest post on the forum!

Posted By Ian Harper Ashley, PPE required by risk assessments is issued to staff. Not issuing PPE identified in a risk assessment is a no no. Please read postings carefully as I don't want people reading these things thinking I advocate identifying PPE in risk assessments and not issuing it. The point I was making to assist Jan, was to identify through risk assessment differing levels of risk. Money is tight enough without spending it where no benifit exists. I don't know if you have experince in LA catering, but many of our staff only come in to assist in putting up tables for 15 minutes a day or just to serve or supervise the kids. It sounds lame but its not discrimination. Its based upon sound facts around the accident rates of my employees and reduced exposure to risk. The position of blanket issue of PPE also throws up more problems. What happens to other people who come into the kitchens? Delivery men, visitors, school staff at tea break? Some small schools double as teacher rest rooms and we don't issue PPE again is this discrimination? As far as the unions go, they agree in principle to targetted PPE. After all they would prefer to see money spent properly and the issue looked at objectivley and approached in a cost effective manner with clear goals. In reality, though, the people on the ground do not agree. One of the main reasons is that the on site managers stated that they felt it difficult to know who was entitled to PPE and who wasn't and didn't want to make the mistake of not issuing. Hopefully this type of info is of use to Jan, but considering Unisons push on this issue, I can't help thinking that this thread should have sparked a bit more debate. Jan, if you are reading this, why were other authorities regreting the issue of this type of PPE?

Posted By Richard Peters This is obviously an area fraught with difficulty, not least the need to balance expenditure with benefit. However, on reading some of the responses regarding cost/benefit which included cost of litigation, my first thought was of Ford and the Pinto (I believe) with their cost/benefit analysis. Was not allegedly their argument that it was cheaper to suffer the consequences of litigation rather than to fix the problem? (I'm trying hard not to get sued here!) With regard to the comments about part time workers erecting tables and supervising children, would this not suggest that the children are also being exposed to the same hazard? In this case, using a hierarchal approach, surely the maximum benefit comes from removing the hazard at source? Also, if there are areas which are regularly used by delivery staff then the use of PPE could be made a requirement of the contract to supply. This is not unlike construction or hazardous industry where hard hats and safety shoes are required. While they need to be supplied at no cost to the employee, it is generally the employer who supplies the generic items with the client only suppliying the locally, or industry required, specialist PPE. Finally, I must agree with the comments regarding injury and payout. My wife and I have both been injured in car accidents through no fault of our own. The money is no compensation for continued pain and disability.

Posted By Zyggy Turek The HSE are currently embarking on a series of national seminars on the subject of "Slips and Trips". The Seminar is an excellent day with input from the HSE Laboratory/RIBA/HSE Inspectors/GMB & an EHO. The day starts with a deeply moving account of the human cost of a slipping accident from a lady who actually had to have her leg amputated following a fall.I am certain that no amount of compensation could alter the fact that she is only able to wear a false limb for a maximum of two hours and that her life has changed for ever. As a final point, can we stop talking about "non-slip floors" and "non-slip footwear", as in my experience there is no such thing, only "anti-slip".