Posted By Paul Leadbetter Bill There have been discussions on this topic before; try using the search facility to find them. Paul

Posted By Sean Fraser It comes down to who actually employs them - the "employer" is the one who has the legal obligation to provide PPE FOC under the '74 Act and 92 Regs. If staff takenm on are techinically self-employed then the onus is on themselves to provide sufficient protective gear to carry out their work - no gear, no work. Unfortunately, it is only you who can actually enforce this - it is your risk assessment that has determined that safety footwear must be used. This is where the difficulty comes in. If you are the only client that demands this, then you are in a poor bargaining position. However, if all existing and potential clients using similar agency workers also have this requirement, it would be reasonable to consider it as being standard. If you all get together and agree to refuse to take on temporary agency staff who are not adequately kitted out, then the agencies will see the writing on the wall and will do something about it sharpish. If not, then you are all tacitly accepting the situation as it is and unless you then provide the gear, nothing will improve. It's easy for me to preach as I am not in this position, but if you are asking the question then you might be on the way to making a stand - refuse to accept temps unless they are properly kitted out, or provide it yourselves. Alternatives are to review your work practices - if footwear is not essential in all areas, dictate where it is and enforce it while relaxing the requirement elsewhere. On the other hand, employ long term temporary or permanent staff directly! Always easier said than done, though, isn't it? :-)

Posted By Alistair Reid I visit a number of sites daily and regularly come across agency temps wainting in reception for PPE or being sent home for not bringing it with them. Their employer, the agency, is responsible for providing them with the necessary PPE however the end user, being the 'owner' of the hazard is the only body in a position to specify the type of PPE required and then enforce its use. The requirements for PPE and the necessary 'information, instruction and training' for its correct use should be part of your agreement with any agencies you use as should the procedures for non compliance.

Posted By Geoff Burt Hilary Possibly on a sticky wicket with that one. PPE should be issued free of charge. It's your rule that says they must have it, not the agency. Who does Temp claim the rebate from? Geoff

Posted By Sean Fraser Yesterday I put the following into a different thread - having seen this one recur I realise I should have put it here instead, so here goes: I read with interest an article in Risks, one of two safety e-zines sent out free by the TUC, about an ex-railway labourer who at 35 is claimed to be the youngest person to have contracted asbestos cancer mesothelioma in an occupational setting. The reason it caught my attention was that he intends to sue his employer - not the railway, but an employment agency (unfortunately he cannot recall the name and he is needing help, hence the article). This chap is severely ill - he has already lost one lung and the prognosis is poor. I am not debating the rights or wrongs of the case, but I thought it fitted in neatly with this thread, where the legal responsibility is being recognised as the employment agency, not the controller of the place of work. Food for thought for agencies who mistakenly believe they can abrogate their legal responsibilities and muddy the waters as to who is the actual employer.