Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By MancMan
I need a little bit of advice if possible - the senario is - the requirement for safety footwear has been recommended follwing a risk assessment. Employees were given a number of different safety shoes types to choose from. Shoes were chosen by the employees and issued. Employees are now refusing to wear the footwear as they are "uncomfortable" and rub their feet.
What are my alternatives with this senario ?? Can they refuse to wear the footwear ?? If I insist they wear the footwear, do they have a case/claim that we have caused them injury (rubbing/blisters) ?? Could we force the individuals to sign a disclaimer if they refuse to wear the footwear (i dont think this one is an option) ?? Is it "legal" to ask them to purchase their own safety footwear that is comfortable) and the company would contribute (the cost of the original footwear) to the individuals ?? How often do we change the shoes, if we replace them this time and they then say the next pair are still uncomfortable ?? I think (reading between the lines) that there is a little bit of "fashion statement" creeping into this - but dont quote me.
Any help or guidance would be much appriciated.
Thanks to all those who reply to this request for help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Lumsden
Hi
in my company we pay the first £30.00 of any shoes they want, they pay the remainder if they want more expensive ones, we find that since they can do this they find they have a better choice and most are willing to pay a bit more for the style they want, yes people are concious of the fashions these days. The shoes are replaced anually (but we dont advertise that)as we find that they dont really want to replace them that quickly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neville
Just to re-iterate what James was stating, the company I represent allows £26.50 for safety footwear annually and no one has come back and made complaint. More often than not, employees will choose a more 'Gucci' style to wear for work but must pay the excess themselves. It is a happy compromise as there is no come back.
Neville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Mathews
Some people will come up with all sorts of excuses why they can’t wear what is provided to protect them from harm, in my experience very few of these are justified.
I have been wearing safety footwear since 15 years of age when I started work as a craft apprentice. I still wear them now even though the majority of my time is spent in an office environment. My reason for this is that (1) I might have to go into a foot protection area at any time, so I am always ready; (2) I never ask anyone to do something I am not prepared to do myself, and; (3) no one can accuse me of not knowing what it is like to wear protective footwear all day.
So to answer your questions, I would say that: You have identified the risk of injury to feet and that safety footwear should be provided as a risk control measure. You have involved the workforce in the selection of the footwear, which is good. It is now their duty to wear the footwear and your duty to enforce that. I don’t think they would claim against you for rubbing/blisters, (but who knows these days). Disclaimers aren’t worth the paper they are printed on and would not be a get out from your legal duties. You can specify a price limit on footwear with the employee paying the extra if they want a more fashionable style (providing it met with the right specification), £30 I think would be very reasonable, unless someone has a genuine reason why they need something different, then you would liable for the full cost. As for how often to replace, it’s really up to you to decide, we replace as required, i.e. when they are worn out, or every 12 months for people who wear them constantly, which ever comes first.
Regards,
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi MacMan.
Sorry to say this, but you're all soooo wrong about the limits placed on payment or reimbursement and even limiting the number of issues of the PPE. Please visit the earlier threads that discussed the same topic in realtion to eye-wear for DSE.
In relation to the "discomfort" alleged by some; you must treat it sensibly and react accordingly. The best way to consider this is to ask yourself the qustion " Would I put up with PPE that is supposed to protect me if it actually causes pain and discomfort to me?"
Basically, to adopt the "It works for & therefore it must work for you" approach is contrary to the PPE Regs and simply not defensible in either H&S [criminal] nor Civil Law.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Frank as usual is right; among the reasonable reasons for refusing to use PPE is that it is uncomfortable, especially uncomfortable to the point of causing injury. There is nothing in the PPE Regs or Guidance to support this view, I know, but we can go back to the employers principal duty; causing injury to workers feet is not ensuring their HS&W at work. In fact, if the aim of safety footwear is prevention of injury, then shoes which cause blisters simply fail to meet the objectives of providing PPE.
Yes, people do sometimes use excuses not to wear PPE, but if you really want to be paranoid ask to see the blisters rather than taking them at face value, and if you can't face feet, send them to occy health for an examination,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Goddard
The company I work for are just in the middle of giving out the safety boots for 165 employees, each employee is given £35 towards there boots with a choice of around 60 boots.
i have only recieved 1 complaint about the boots, and this is because they know what it says in the 74 act section 9 that it has to be comfortable to the wearer
and no levy towards the employee. which this gives rise to every thing you provide for health and safety.
regards
Ian Goddard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steven
You can guarantee that every month there is an issue with safety footwear!!
I have been very interested as from the RA I have done I have also recognised the need for Protective footwear, I have already been "told" that certain employees will not wear them for 1 reason or another. I am interested in the view of disclaimers as the director wants to go down this road as well!!!! Is it a piece of worthless paper, if so are there any cases out there that show this??
Personally I would move the employee into a job where he would not require protection if they refused to wear it, like cleaning the toilets with a tooth brush!!!!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Todd
Send them to a chiropodist (with their safety shoes). We did this and the complaints soon died down. However, the chiropodist did discover some things wrong with people's feet and some required custom made inserts (for all shoes, not just safety shoes) which we also paid for (don't ask me about the tax implications). I think most were grateful, as they realised the Company had helped prevent health problems for them later in life.
Regards,
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi Steven.
Yes, any attempt at getting disclaimers from your employees is not only worthless, it has no legal standing in employment law, civil law, H&S Fire or Environmental law.
PS I believe that it could also lead to "constructive dismissal" claims.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.