Posted By David Scott Malcolm, I have a similar situation in my factory. All filling operations are carried out in guarded enclosures and sometimes you get a leak or punctured can. (We fill aerosols). The operators have to stop the machine and open the guards to get in there and clean up/remove the cans. This may occur once or twice during the shift and for those who wear glasses we provide overspecs the same as you do. I now find that they are asking for prescription safety glasses for a function which under 'normal conditions' is safe. Like you, I have no problem providing protection when dictated by risk assessment but not at the whim of Tom, Dick or Harry! I say, stick to your guns! If he is only at risk whilst cleaning, provide a full face visor so that he can wear his ordinary specs underneath them!

Posted By Jim Walker Spectacles, prescription or otherwise, are very poor protection against chemical hazards. I'm frequently surprised such protection is considered acceptable. Personally (as a spectacle wearer) I prefer a visor. You don't get steamed up and there is face protection too.

Posted By Paul Craythorne I support Jim on this one. Prescription safety spectacles with side shields are for impact protection only and would not offer sufficient protection from chemical splashes. Your union rep is probably coming from a point of a little knowledge combined with good intentions and that can be dangerous. Chemical grade safety goggles that form an effective seal around the eye area or a chemical grade visor are the options you should be considering. Regards, Paul Craythorne

Posted By Sean Fraser Malcolm, Just a thought, but do you have large orders for safety glasses etc.? Then perhaps your local supplier rep would be willing to come in to discuss your requirements and act as unofficial mediator in this "dispute", as recognised expert in the subject. After all, their experience is in selling the things to a number of location and sector types so they should have a good grounding on the current best practice approaches. Obviously this is all dependent on their sales executive training, experience and lack of bias (a good one won't sell you stuff that doesn't meet your needs as the quick sale is always far outweighed by the long term loss when the customer goes elsewhere!). Reasoning is, when you have two parties who have stated their opposing positions and aren't budging, introduction of an independent third party, especially one with expert knowledge, could be sufficient to tip the balance and come out with an agreed result.

Posted By Michael Miller Having read all your comments I consider you all to be right in one way or another. I have been looking for a case I read recently but as usual can't find it when you need it ( I shall report back with the said details) However it went like this. A woman was employed at an electronics factory on an assembly line. She was a spectacle wearer but also had to wear eye protection whilst on the assembly line. Having experienced some difficulty (Question of compatibility with glasses) she requested eye protection with prescription lens. They agreed in principle but after six months failed to deliver. The employee resigned claiming constructive dismissal. Case was upheld and she received a considerable sum. (Employment Rights Act) I would not dare to try to tell my granny how to suck eggs, but if the PPE is not comatible it is no matter how long it is worn I hour or one shift. the fact is has been issued means it must be necessary and therefore must be suitable to the wearer as well as comatible with anything else the employee might have to wear. Its OK to stick to your guns and bully the safety rep but is it really worth it. The president has been set why push your luck. The current figure for wrongfull/constructive dismissal is somewhere in the region of £15,000. My comany has a contract with a local optician who knocks out glases at £38 per pair for VDU users and this is including the eye test fee. It can not be much more for a one off visor. it seems like a reasonable request to me. Mike