Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Alan Murphy
I found out recently from a friend a company near me was to some degree charging for PPE, for instance they would have like a budget of 20 pounds per person for boots but they were all poor quality but you could pay like an extra 7 pounds yourself for decent safety brogues or boots.
Also if a person lost or had them stolen etc, they were charged for new pairs, and the same was applied to most PPE. I am sure the employer must provide PPE free of charge so is this part charging allowed or not.
In my last company even if they went over their allotted amount say one pair of boots per 6 months they were still never charged.
Thanks in advance for everyones views.
Regards
Alan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Taylor14
check out reg.9 hasawa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Heather Collins
If it is compulsory to wear safety footwear then the employer must provide adequate footwear for the risk, free of charge. This doesn't necessarily equate to the cheapest they can find, but it's usually possible to find reasonable shoes without busting the budget.
If it's not compulsory to wear the shoes then the employer is entitled to ask for a contribution to the cost. We operate a company subsidy scheme to help our employees with the cost of shoes and it's very popular. Obviously this only applies in areas where safety footwear is not compulsory.
Heather
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
We have a generous budget for shoes which is £40 after discount (I get 22% off). However, if the employee wants Timberland or Caterpillars then they pay extra for them which is not unreasonable I don't think. The staff don't take the mickey and we don't scrimp and save so it is an amicable arrangement all round.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lewes
We have a budget of £25 per person and they can choose from a comprehensive list of styles and types from one supplier.
If they want to buy from another source or style they bring a receipt in and we pay them £25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi Alan and all other respondants.
The first respondant is absolutely correct - HSWA S9 expressly forbids the employer to levy any form of charge for anything required as a consequence of direct [legislatively proscribed] or indirect [provision of PPE in any form, systems of work etc] requirements.
For PPE, instead of setting a maximum cost per item, or period for the item to last before replacement - both of which are inherently contrary to S9; the employer should be defining the minimum standard of protection to be attained and ensuring that the standard is maintained.
This is a continually recurring theme on this Forum and throughout industry generally, and I'm continually amazed at the numbers of employers who actually get away with it despite the various enforcement initiatives promoted by HSE & HELA. If these issues were properly addressed, a considerable number of entirely avoidable injuries would be prevented, or ar least minimised.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Murphy
Excellent response Frank my sentiments exactly, but us on the knife edge of safety have to change peoples ingrained bad attitudes and habits in to good ones. Make everyone realise safety is a short term cost for a long time gain. After all it is all part of the challenge.
Regards
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Many employers will have determined the minimum protection required, and from this have identified suitable ppe which meets those requirements. If this has been done first, then it is not unreasonable to set a budget provided that this is regularly reviewed against the spec. and availability. However, employees wishing to contribute to more expensive ppe should be able to demonstrate that the items they have chosen conform to that minimum spec. There should not be a minimum replacement period, production of worn out ppe should be sufficient. Loss or theft should be investigated as for any other missing company owned equipment, taking account of whatever precautions the company has to guard against such losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john fitzgibbon
In my experience many companies give the workforce the ability to purchase more expensive PPE subsidised by the cost of the PPE provided FOC by the company.
At my last company this approach was endorsed by the local HSE office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Webber
Whats that saying? The spirit not the letter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
The wearing of safety footwear is compulsory at our company.
We provide safety footwear free (to a value of £25, including a good discount). The footwear at this price (equivalent to at least £35) provide totally adequate protection for the environment they are worn in and the range to choose from is extensive. If employees wish to go for boots that are more stylish or Gortex etc, then they pay the difference.
They are replaced when necessary, with no time restriction (if less than 6 months, then the guarantee covers replacement).
The HSE have found no problem with this as we do meet the requirements of S9, and I believe both in spirit and the letter,
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap
Our company gives a refund of £25 after purchase of boots. This works well. Even if the operatives boots fall to bits we encourage them to get a new pair. If accounts complain that they are tacking the p*** than we will intervene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Whaley
Previous respondants have stated that it is against the Law to charge for PPE. This is a fact (section 9 HSWA among others). The other consideration that should be given to employees providing their own PPE, is how does the company (Managers, H&S Advisors, etc) know the PPE is suitable for purpose? PPE must provide the protection required as shown by the risk assessment. The only way this can be controlled is by the company providing the PPE to the required specification at no cost to the employee. If any employee has a problem with the PPE provided, compatibility, etc., this should be investigated and a suitable alternative provided. If a suitable alternative cannot be found then the employees suitability for the specific task is in question. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
I'd just like to clarify something which also needs to be said, and is often not honoured. If the employee has good reason for needing more expensive PPE than the 'budget' allows, then that too must be provided FOC. It's OK to say '£25 but if you want caterpillars you pay the difference'; what;s not OK is to say '£25 but if you need caterpillars you pay the difference'. Of course the employer would be entitled to ask for and evaluate evidence of genuine need, but provided this was forthcoming the more expensive option would have to be provided.
Not just boots, any equipment provided for safety; we paid £350 (50% of the cost, the rest came from access to work) for a chair for one of our PAs with fibromyalgia,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.