Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney Many years ago I had a similar situation; at the end of the day the principal client can make whatever requests they like, it comes down to whether or not you want to continue to trade with them. In the situation I was faced with it turned out that the complaints were from female workers stating that the men in shorts were putting them off, (putting them off what?) I can't think why, perhaps some of the chaps were not really suitable for shorts. With respect to RA's it’s if the shorts do not offer sufficient protection to the wearer, i.e. sun protection, scratches etc. We have many contractors attending site that wear shorts and do not as a company have any issue with it, in fact we are pleased to see ladies and gents wearing shorts, short fat hairy legs an the like, (and that’s just the chaps) I can however mildly understand the clients wishes, it just makes like slightly difficult for them to enforce the no short rule, having so said, it's a bit like the company’s that supply supermarkets, the restrictions, rules, procedures to adhere to are vast! Whatever happened to democracy and freedom of speech and wearing shorts? Charles

Posted By Kinnikin In answer to Lorraines question. Wearing shorts virtually doubles the area of bare skin exposed to any hazardous substance. In addition to this, cleaning of the area is much harder if a spillage occurs and much less liekly is a person is splashed. Whereas a person would / could wash his/her arms and hands relatively easily, the washing of the legs is more difficult in the workplace and as such much less likely to occur. The long pants form at least some degree of a barrier.

Posted By Frank Hallett At least this one wasn't artificially dressed up [sorry - not!] as an H&S issue. Ultimately, it really does come down to the client enforcing their perception of acceptable dress-codes. Incidentally, does the client company insist that all females have their legs covered to the ankle as well? If not, a plain [and indefensible] case of sexual discrimination!! I also wish to address an earlier observation about the potential protection afforded by leg-coverings. There will be no actual protection afforded and in cases of contact with many substances the retention of substances in close contact with the skin for longer periods could well exacerbate the consequences of exposure - and that includes sweat! Sensible risk assessment and then sensible dialogue with the client is really the way to go. Be prepared for increased staff turn-over if you go with the client without involving your workforce in the most meaningful way! What about the Kilt then? Frank Hallett

Posted By Raj Singh RSO Hi, I believe that there must be more information given. I do agree that long pants provide some form of protection when it comes to splashs of hot/cold liquids, contact with hot/cold objects or contact with mild chemicals. I also agree that most people would find it abit difficult to wash off substances from the legs, compared to the the hands. Yet, having said this, arms should also be protected as they might also come into contact with the above mentioned. So I guess the writer needs to look at the hazards first.