Rank: Guest 
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john r sharp
Stuart
Why do employees need an eye test? Safety specs can be supplied to any employee. Only those who normally wear glasses would need prescription lenses: their prescription could be used for this purpose.
The cost of providing the safety specs could be negociated with a supplier, who, I'm sure, would give a good price and possibly include the eyetest. You could, of course, use a screening test to highlight if there any problems.
I personaaly don't know of any case law, but I know that there was an article recently about the provision of PPE.
I'll have a look around and e-mail you direct if I find anything.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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 !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Homer
I think I understand where you are coming from. If a person requires prescription safety glasses for his work, should the employer pay for his eye test?
Firstly yes you can have a seperate eye test for prescription safety glasses, without buying the actual glasses, but why should an employee pay for this if the safety glasses are an essential piece of PPE at his place of work. The employer has a duty to provide PPE that is fit for purpose and it would not be unreasonable to incur an eye test charge as part of this .
Secondly if you are working in an area where safety glasses are mandatory for a large proportion of your day then it would be unreasonable to expect an individual who requires prescription safety glasses, to wear protective eyewear over his existing specs. It's uncomforatble and will also create a false sense of security situation, they may think they are weraing additional PPE when they are not.
Does your employer not have health surveillance and monitoring. Eye test are not expensive and they are not required every year so tell him to dig deep. Additionally if you are buying prescription glasses you will find the eye test is built into the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By allan wood
stuart
at the last company i worked for i had a similar argument with the directors. the safety glassess the painters where using where of polycarbonate construction (Lenses) and the xylene used to thin the paint actually weakened them and smudged the lens so that they no longer complide with grade 1 impact resistance and you could no longer see clearly through them. having explained this and contacted one of the leading opticians for a safer alternative. i was told in no un certain terms to drop the idea. this was due to the cost of impact resistant glass lenses being 25 pound per pair as opposed to 4 or 5 pound per pair and useless at the end of the shift. after trying to explain that it worked out cheaper over the course of one week to purchase these glass lensed safety glassess (based on a 7 day working week)and that anyone needing prescription lenses could be accomodated for an extra charge. as for wearing over glassess, doing any form of physical activity makes them mist up posing a further hazard of obscuring vision, this in turn is in contravention of the P.P.E. regs. having banged my head against the wall over this issue over a period of 6-8 weeks i came to the conclusion that i was wasting my time with these people.
i now work for another company as i dont like talking to people with wooden heads, whom look no further than the end of their noses as far as health and safety goes.
regards
allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Miller
Hi
The only case law I can find that relates to this is Britsh Aircraft v Austin 1978 IRLR 332
(constructive dismissal) If anyone is unfamiliar with this case and wants the full transcript please let me know and I will post it on the forum. But in a nut shell supply prescription visors at company expense or pay the consequences.
MIke
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Miller
John
Not quite right. She was worried about her eye sight but employer breached her contract. I will post the findings of the ET as it is written it will probably generate a good discussion anyway.
Case: British Aircraft Corporation v Austin [1978]IRLR 332 Stat Ref. Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, s55(2)(c):
Facts: Mrs Austin wore specticles. She and her colleagues were supplied with safety goggles. The goggles did not fit comfortably over her specticles so she asked if it was possible for the company to supply safety specticles to her prescription. She waited ten months but nothing was done about her request. She resigned rather than face the danger of eye injury any longer.
She claimed the company's delay in responding to her request was a breach of contract serious enough to allow her to resign and claim unfair dismissal compensation.
Decision.
The employers safety duties to employees are of fundemental importance to the employee's contractof employment. Breach of duty by an employer in this respect amounts to a serious breach of contract of the type conered by s.57 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (now repealed) This entitles the employee to consider themselves constructively dismissed and to obtain compensation for that dismissal.
In this case, the employer's failure to attend speedily to Mrs Austin's reasonable request was a serious breach of contract.
So to answer the main posting (I would if faced with the same scenario provide the prescription as it is a reasonable request) Also PPE has to be suitable for the task, fit the employee and be compatible with other PPE or arguably employees spectalces.
Hope this was of some use
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
The only specific legal requirement for employers to pay for eye tests that comes to my mind is for users under the DSE Regs. There is a duty to provide suitable and sufficient eye protection when necessary based upon risk assessment under the PPE Regs. I take it, from your question, that it has been decided that, for good reason, eye protection for certain employees needs to contain prescription lenses rather than the usual plain ones, visors, etc. This being the case, a considerate employer desirous of the goodwill of his/her employees would probably not want to opt out of the extra £10 or so when compared with the considerable cost of the prescription lenses. Those wishing to stick to only the 'letter of the law' could argue that persons already requiring prescription spectacles will be in possession of the information within their current prescription (which should be dated within the last 12 months or such other period as advised by their optician) and can provide this to the manufacturer without the need for another eye test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
The present situation regarding medical examinations that may be required, is that the employee should not pay.
One presumes that will also apply to eye examination.
There are several jobs where a medical is required...fork truck drivers and paint application personnel spring to mind.
You should also, if you keep details of the examination on file, bear in mind the requirements of the DPA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Miller
Well I still say that provision of eye tests and prescription spectacles/visors will be a lot less that the litigation that may follow an accident. Even if the company wins the case the cost of defending it will cost far more than the provision of prescription lenses.
The HSE or the court may take the view that the cost was reasonable to prevent such an injury or incident.
As an example I will tell you about a recent scenario which is a different subject but the principle is the same.
A local authority South of the country were recently prosecuted for failing to supply child proof safety locks to an upper floor window on a council house where a child fell and was seriously injured.
Extra security above standard fittings and fixtures are a tenants responsability and has been as long as I can remember and I have worked for 4 LA'S over the last 14 years. The HSE took the view that it would have cost below £50 to have the locks fitted to the entire property. So very little to prevent so big an tragedy.
Speaking of LA's My employer provides for my eye test and spectacles as a DSE user. They have a contract with a local optician who is quite happy to provide eye tests to employees of LA and lenses in frames for under £48. I'm happy (and safe) Employers Happy and optician is happy.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Thank you to all of you for your considered responses in respect of the above discussion matter, that has provided some interesting and different views on the issue.
Regards...
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Here comes my two pennyworth :
1. As a general rule I believe that an individuals health, including sight and hearing are primarily their own responsibility.
2. Protecting that health during working hours is the employer's responsibility.
3. Best practice for the individual is to have your sight tested every year or two.
4. Best practice for an employer is to establish the general health of any new employee - fit for the job etc. and specifically factors which may be affected by work exposure - sight, hearing, lung capacity etc.
So, new employees who already wear glasses should have a current prescription from which safety glasses can be made up.
New employees who do not wear glasses but may have to wear safety glasses should be tested once at the employer's expense. This will determine if they require prescription safety glasses or not. Subsequent tests, as required by above quoted best practice, would be at the employee's expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
As a final point from me, I have been in contact with HSE and their opinion, after due consideration, is as follows:
1. Where an existing employee has prescription safety spectacles, has a new eyesight test and requires a further prescription, and hence new prescription safety lenses/spectacles, the employer is required to pay for both the eyesight test and the prescription safety lenses/spectacles.
2. Where an existing employee, who is required to work in a mandatory eye protection zone, has an eyesight test and requires as a result of that eye test, a prescription, where prescription safety spectacles are required, the employer is required to pay for both eye sight test and the prescription safety spectacles.
3. There is no requirement for eyesight testing of all employees, unless medical surveillance is required, arising from a hazard likely to affect employees eyesight, in which case all employees exposed to the hazard should have routine medical surveillance in respect of their eyesight.
The HSE opinion is based on the respective EU directive, giving rise in the UK to The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002, in particular to the amendment of Regulation 4 of the PPE Regulations 1992, which states:
(b) it takes account of the ergonomic requirements and the state of health of the person or persons who may wear it, and of the characteristics of the workstation of such person.
In respect of the above, I have recommended that our company policy on the provision of prescription safety spectacles reflects the above HSE advice.
Stuart...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Ken.
How very observant of you... You are course correct in your assumptions that anything can happen and we will have to wait and see what the outcomes are.
whether HSE will consider this issue further remains to be seen, as to whether they put anything into writing.... your guess is as good as mine. I expect the answer may be be 'refer to Health and Safety (Miscellaeous Amendments) Regulations 2002...and risk assess...and if you have done all the above forementioned etc etc... or am I being synical!!
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Not even cynical, Stuart. It’s just the voice of protracted experience!
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.