Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Malcolm Hogarth
I wonder if anyone can assist with a query regarding the provision of prescription safety spectacles to a factory (Food production)operative.
The scenario is that we have an employee who wears spectacles and is provided with safety 'overspecs' when carrying out some tasks such has handling cleaning chemicals. The problem is that he insists he must have a pair of prescription safety glasses. My argument is that unless he requires safety glasses for the duration of his shift (He doesn't)then the overspecs are sufficient.
None of his colleagues wears safety glasses for the duration of the shift and a risk assessment has been carried out concluding that overspecs are the appropriate PPE.
It does not help that the person involved is a union safety rep who tells me that I am not doing my job properly.
I have no problem in providing safety wear of any kind as long as I can justify it but on this occassion I do not feel it justified and the feeling is that he is just after a free pair of safety specs.
I suppose one answer would be to provide prescription safety goggles and that way he could not wear them outside work.
All thoughts and comments would be gratefully received.
Regards,
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
We reckon that if you need to wear safety glasses for over 50% of your shift then you can have prescription safety glasses. This applies to office workers, obviously the shop floor have prescription as it is a mandatory safety glasses area.
In this instance, therefore, I think you are right to stick to your guns, however, perhaps you could come to some arrangement of a half/half share on safety glasses. If he is so adamant and these are so important then surely he will see the benefit of paying half towards them, after all, he is wearing them. I think if this suggestion is put forward the problem will disappear spontaneously. If it doesn't and he agrees then, fair enough, you will have to cough up half but surely half is better than all.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
I agree with Jim. Can you get prescription safet specs for chemical splash?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Turner
I suggest a visor, seems to be the best option using the information provided.
As regards to the union rep, as long as you can back up your decision with facts (which you have indicated you can), then there should not be a problem. Any safety minded person from the union will see this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Malcolm.
Whilst you state that you have conducted a risk assessment and that the overspecs are to your mind more than adequate, I seem to recall that the PPE regs also require the PPE to be suitable to the user as well.
It may well be, union rep or not put to one side for a minute, that the PPE user finds these overspecs uncomfortable to wear and thus unsuitable!!
I would suggest a review of the situation to ensure that you have really taken the issue of the equipment being suitable for the user into consideration. Your comments would appear to intimate a little frustration with the situation, which is understandable in the circumstances, but should not be allowed to cloud your vision on the matter and what is required to be considered.
Perhaps the company could, if the chap really wants the safety spectacles, and your review still indicates that are not really necessary, to meet him halfway (like with DSE specs) and pay for the safety elements (i.e the frames, wings and increased cost of the 'safety lens') and he the normal costs of the lens....
Some food for thought....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.