Posted By Stuart Nagle We are curently in the process of establishing policy for providing safety spectacles for employees. Our Deputy MD has questioned paying for eye tests as part of the package. he feels that the employees should pay for eye tests themselves. The other opinion is that as safety spectacles cannot be provided without an eye test, then this cost should be inclusive in the provision, particularly in light of: 1) HSAWA Section 9 that states that the employer cannot levy a charge for the provision of anything done or provided in respect of relevant statutory provisions, and 2) PPE Regs, Reguation 4 (as amended by the The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002) states in (4) (b) that PPE supplied must take account of the state of health of the person or persons who may wear it, and the characteristics of the workstation of each person. Taken together, the second opinion is that an eyesight test and the safety spectacles are in fact one thing, that cannot be supplied without the other, and so should be inclusive, and not seperate. hence the employee should not have to pay for the eyesight test! I would value others opinions on this matter and any known references in case law on similar difference on opinion.

Posted By John Murgatroyd Just buy a selection of protective gear. Spectacles (non-prescription) Goggles. Head-mounted visors. You don't have to provide prescription spectacles. All of the above can be purchased for a few quid each, with the clear visors being the most expensive, but both visor and goggles can fit over user spectacles. Don't forget to have each user sign for the gear. You'd be surprised how useful clear specs are for home jobs !

Posted By Kevin Irwin I agree with Homer on this. I have introduced the wearing of precription spectacles in two companies. The potential pifalls are for staff abusing the system and requesting varifocal lenses or bi-focal lenses when they don't normally use them. The wearing of varifocals can lead to additional hazards to the wearer particularly when climbing ladders etc. Overall though the benefits from increased staff protection and general morale outweighs the pitfalls.

Posted By John Murgatroyd The phrase "can't see the wood for the trees" comes to mind. The xylene in the paint affected the lenses. Excuse me, what about the painters then ? Have you looked at the problems caused by exposure to xylene (di-methyl-benzene)(etc) "Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through skin. Narcotic. May cause lung irritation, chest pain or fatal oedema. May impair fertility. Typical STEL 150 ppm." I could go-on about how accurate MSDS are...not...I won't mention the long-term cancer risk. Now, did the painters have RPE while painting ? OOppps...they SHOULD have. Prescription safety specs cost about £75.00. plus the eyesight test (£10.00-£16.00), plus the time for the test. As for the "problems" caused by wearing specs and goggles/visor etc...I wear both...no problems here...I also wear full RPE on top of the visor and specs...so I'm looking through clear/tinted/clear/clear/clear combination.

Posted By John Murgatroyd Surely that case was about the company failing to take seriously an employees worries about H&S ? There are ample means to protect an employee from eye injury without resorting to the supply of prescription eye protection.

Posted By John Murgatroyd So it was more about the employer not taking her seriously and addressing her fears. Nothing new there then. But not about the supply of prescription eye protection. No case law on that. My union H&S say that if the provided eye protection, which fits over the spectacles, is not comfortable or causes other problems then safety spectacles with prescription lenses may be needed. My personal feeling is that the employer would prefer to find the employee another position which did not need such measures. Like third in line in the dole. My employer will not provide such safety gear. (they don't even provide clean air)

Posted By Stuart Nagle Further to the above, and to reiterate the essential facts: 1) there are employees who already have prescription safety spectacles, and a current prescrition. So this is not a problem. 2) If a prescription runs out and a new presciption is needed for an existing wearer of presciption safety glasses - who pays for the prescription? 3) If a new employee is a glasses wearer and is required to work in a mandatory eye protection area, and due to nature of work/suitability ect other means of eye protection are not suitable, and hence prescription safety spectacles are deemed necessary, who pays for the eye test? 4) If an existing employee who works in a mandatory eye protection area finds they need glasses (after an eye test) and prescription safety spectacles are deemed necessary (as above) should the employer pay for the cost of the eye test already taken? The issues here appear to be several: a) costs are a factor, is it reasonably practicable to pay for all eye tests or only some, or none? b) compliance with statutory provisions in respect of provision of PPE, and c) What does provision of PPE in the case of prescription safety spectacles include? is it just the spectacles themselves or does it also include the cost of an eye test? can one part of the physical PPE be provided without the other part - the eye test or is the 'provision' inclusive of both parts? Discussion on the DSE regs is interesting by way of comparrison. the accepted criteria is that DSE use does not damage eyes, but highlights already existing eye problems that may, as a result of DSE use, need correction. On the other hand, the use of safety spectacles (of any type) is to prevent an immediate, and possibly irretreivable loss of sight or serious injury to eyes and/or eyesight. If, as it could be argued, the latter is the more dangerous, should there not be provision for the whole PPE provision i.e. eye test and spectacles, as with the lesser risk of DSE use, where both are provided and are merely for corrective purposes as opposed to preventative purposes of a more serious injury! Please keep the replies coming.... Stuart

Posted By Stuart Nagle John. Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, whilst there is a requirement to pay for medical surveillance, where appropriate, the issue here is distictly one of the provision of PPE and not specifically medical surveillance. What needs to be dicovered is whether the eye test 'and' the supply of presciption spectacles can be deemed as one thing, or whether they are two things, with the employer only required to furnish the cost of the spectacles and not the eye test or paying for both eye test and the spectacles... Stuart

Posted By Alec Wood Interesting discussion! Returning to the core of Stuart's question as above (do you need to give a free eyetest too?), I would answer that one as follows. You have a clear duty to provide PPE which is suitable. If the type of PPE being provided is prescription safety spectacles then you must satisfy yourself that the prescription lenses fitted are suitable for the employee. I can see no other way of doing this than providing an eye test as part of the deal. Failure to do so may lead to some employees wearing unsuitable lenses. Such lenses increase risk to their sight and may lead to further liability on your part.

Posted By allan wood john did you ever manage to get any work done with all that eye protection on? if you do any physical work such as painting fuel tanks on a fuel terminal, the option of wearing over glassess is totally impractical when doing this operation. the quatity of xylene used is minimal. but enough to smear the lenses making them useless, all other control measures where in place coshh assessments etc other ppe.

Posted By John Murgatroyd I don't really have a lot of choice as to the protection worn. My occupation is fitter/fabricator/welder. When welding, you obviously wear eye protection, both from particles and from UV. The headpiece comes with an outer clear cover, which is polycarbonate. The next layer is tinted glass (tint 11EW) followed by another clear plastic inside cover. The headpiece has an integral air duct with flexible pipe to a battery powered pump. This is needed because the results from a fume/dust test (forced upon the company by the HSE...and I mean forced) was quite appalling...respirable dust 4 times the maximum allowed, manganese, nickel, chrome, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide....all above the recommended levels. Note that the majority of small companies don't provide this protection...mine only provides it because they were FORCED to. I think in years to come very many people are going to be feeling very guilty over the amount of people who die early because of industrial disease. My union H&S is concerned about possible asbestos-like problems caused by glass fibres...the list goes on and on... Employers HAVE to provide eye protection ,free, if needed. The employer also has to ensure it is USED if provided.

Posted By Ken Taylor Thanks for the information, Stuart. I hope that the HSE will put this in writing for us. Otherwise we could have employees having eye tests followed by employers refusing to reimburse them or employers, once having provided prescription eye protection, not ensuring that the employees concerned have continued to have regular eye tests and therefore allowing the use of no longer suitable or sufficient eye protection, refusals to employ or unfair dismissal of persons requiring regular expensive replacement of prescription eye protection, more debates like this one - possibly with different opinions from other [reference removed], etc, etc.

Posted By Dave Daniel Stuart: Many years ago in B/L-Rover Group when we introduced prescription safety specs for the first time (1978 I think it was) .. we coined the phrase "We pay for protection, you pay for correction". Anyone who wanted EP had to afford their own prescription costs. This worked well, and contrary to other respondents, at the time the HSE were aware of and concurred this policy, and our Trade unions were fully involved in introducing it, indeed Derek Robinson ("Red Robbo") was at the time the chaiman of the Longbridge H&S committee...... a much maligned man. I see nothing in place which changes the apparent legality of this practice and it has stood the test of time unchallenged. Dave Daniel Technical Director, Practical Risk Management Ltd Sometime Group Safety Adviser, Rover Group