Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By el nino
Eyes down - thinking caps on. A legal question on which I have not been able to find any case law.
Once upon a time......
A large company brings in a rule for all of its sites that a certain minimum level of PPE must be worn. This includes safety shoes, safety specs and hard hats.
Most sites need all of this PPE but one site has no overhead hazards and can see no reason for enforcing the wearing of hard hats. But enforce it they must.
Question Time:
If there are no significant overhead hazards and there has been no risk assessment could an employee refuse to wear the hard hat?
El Nino invites all sensible comments on this question ( failing sensible comments please just post something funny ).
El Nino
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Heather Aston
If wearing the PPE is a condition of employment at company X then I would assume that refusing to do so brings the employee into breach of his T&C of employment (ooer this is HR stuff so I'll leave it alone).
I have come across this kind of "everyone wears it whether they need it or not" approach to PPE - especially in the US with eye protection. I suppose ultimately it's their site and within reason they make the rules. I personally think it devalues PPE to force employees to wear it without good reason as determined by risk assessment.
The employee could certainly be disciplined by the company, but as to whether he could be prosecuted under say S7 HASAWA - in theory I suppose yes. After all it's not up to the individual employees to make the judgement on whether something is safe or not - they may not fully understand the basis on which that judgement was made by the company.
Heather
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jason telford
At the end of the day if the wearing of hard hats has been included in the company policy then they must abide by this or be in breach of company policy and face misconduct procedures
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By el nino
El Nino thanks you for your replies so far, but thinking on.....
Could it be a human rights type issue?
Forcing someone to wear PPE which they really have no need to wear?
El Nino
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
But if the company has NOT made any site/job specific assessment then they might become liable for unfair dismissal or even constructive dismissal if the employee wants to go that route.
Now a company HSE hack (yes there are some out there), or even a (company) paid consultant, could come along and say "oh yes, I assess this as a "head protection" zone" and then it could probably be up to the employee to prove the opposite.
I have never liked blanket safety rules which exist because "we all do it like that"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By el nino
Some good points Merv.
Lets expand this a little. Lets say that someone faints in the hot hot English summer, sustaining a broken bone, and blames the fall on the forced wearing of a hard hat!!!! Could this be grounds for a claim?
El Nino
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Heather Aston
OK so this is Civil law now not company policy or employment T&C or HASAWA S7 (yes I have got the right section this time).
Is the company in breach of their duty of care towards their employee? "Well certainly not Mr Lawyer, we are a good responsible employer providing head protection for our employees - who could possibly have forseen that the English summer would be so hot?"
Sounds a bit dubious to me.
Heather
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue
Totally agree with you Heather- a hot English summer sounds very dubious to me too!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By el nino
Oh come on!
People do faint in the English weather. I myself had a nasty turn on the Embankment last summer ( any claims that this was following a wine tasting session at The Ivy are untrue).
So - we are free to make people wear whatever PPE we like as long as it goes in their contract?
El Nino feels this is rather unreasonable??
El Nino.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
The wearing of a white hard hat in the african sun (up to 55°C) can be quite refreshing - the gap between the harness and the shell also allows a cooling breeze to waft gently over your brow, evaporating the perspiration as it goes. Aaaaah
drilling a few holes in the shell to aid the air-conditioning effect is actually counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue
It's as simple as ensuring that there is a good supply of H2O in both Summer and believe it or not in winter.
Maybe you could address the PPE situation by introducing Hard hats with vents in the sides which keeps the head cool- we wore these whist working in the states last year and found no problems and no casualties of heatstroke were recorded in our site when a good supply of water to rehydrate was available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zoê
El Nino, you asked if this could be a human rights issue, unless you are a Government body the Human Rights Act is not directly enforceable on you (I always, always stand to be corrected).
So I would say no it's not a human rights issue per se unless you are a said Government body.
It may be unreasonable to force an employee to wear a hard hat, but unless it does him/her harm they have no real gorunds to refuse as it could be classed as company uniform of a fashion. If they say it does them harm then get them to get a doctor's note :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ryan J
El Nino
The only comment i would make is that employers should ensure that they have grounds to enforce the wearing of hard hats. In the event of an incident related to the wearing of the hard hats [obstructed vision etc] you would need to be able to explain why the decision had been made in the first place, I feel it is not acceptable to force people to wear hard hats if there is no risk of inury to the head.
Keep in mind that the construction head protection regs even say head protection should be worn on construction sites "unless there is no forseeable risk of injury to the head other than from falling".
Forcing people to wear unecessary PPE just for the sake of wearing it is a battle I would always fight. as it undermines the real reasons why we want people to wear it in the first place "to protect them from hazards that are present in the workplace that cannot be eliminated etc".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By el nino
Some wise words from you all - my thanks.
Any comments on Ryan J's first paragraph?
El Nino
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DavidHaddon
Generic policies often give rise to this kind of anomaly, since specific details may not be being taken into account.
Surely wearing PPE of any kind must be driven by risk assessment? and be specific to site/location, the individual and their role (amongst others).
There is no benefit from forcing people to wear PPE when there is no forseeable risk.
Very interesting thread though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zoê
Re: Ryan J's first para
Agree 100%, he has the perfect counterpoint to wearing PPE unnecessarily. We all know PPE to be a last resort due its many downfalls and so choosing that as standard without having even undertaken a risk assessment is for all honesty quite wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ludovic Le Cam
Well, well, well...
A company policy must, under normal circumstances, be
implemented. However, provided a decision has been taken on a specific site (why not after a formal risk assessment has been conducted), and following submission of a derogation and its subsequent approval by headquarters, rules can be altered to a certain extent.
Nevertheless, after this idealistic (if not utopic) afore statement, during the day-to-day site activities, it is not always possible to permanently comply with for example the continuous wearing of hard hats. It is left to the appreciation and judgement of the site decision-makers or supervisors.
Stupid safety is always likely to jeopardize people's credibility.
Ludo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By el nino
Thanks for the comments once again.
Ludo - agree with your point on credibility. "Integrity" and "Credibility" must be our bywords.
Remember - this site is being forced to wear this PPE. The local decision makers have their hands tied.
El Nino
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.