Posted By Graeme My partner is a special police constable. She had to purchase a pair of 'Protective' £80 boots with steel toe cap, ankle supports etc. Now as far as iam concerned these would surely be classed as PPE, as due to the nature of the job they are likely to be on rough terrain, land with potentially needles and glass, hence protective footwear required. They claimed had she done 300hours a year they she would be refunded the money, however she has only done 270 hours this year, hence no refund and a might pis.sed off partner. Now surely this is a breach of HASWA and PPE regs on the grounds that she has had to supply and purchase her own PPE in the first instance??? Iam considering writing a letter, so want to ensure my interpretation of the relevant legislations are correct before doing so. Kind Regards

Posted By paul debney I have not got my information to hand, but are special police, voluntary workers? If so I do not think the regs apply. I am not sure if the section 9 will apply either? Section 3 of the HSAW Act should be enough though.

Posted By Graeme Yes they are voluntary workers to some extent, however they are contracted to work a minimum of 4 hours per week. All other equipment were provided free of charge, for example all clothing, body armour, etc etc So to exclude a pair of equally important protective boots from the list of free equipment and to then specify the exact type of protective boot required seems odd.

Posted By Paul Adams To answer one question raised...no, TA and other reserve forces do not have to pay for their own boots or any other item of kit. However, many Reservists and full time members of Her Majesty's armed forces do purchase their own equipment because, in their opinion, that provided is inferior to what is available. Also, Reservists tend to be at the bottom of the pecking order behind regular front line units. Mobilisation to Iraq from 2003 onwards saw reservists arriving in theatre with less than the equipment it had been decided they should have. However, the question appears to be not should they be provided, but that they should only be provided if a specific contribution to the service is made in return. In my mind, the PPE is either required or not required and the stance to pay if over 300 hours completed indicates the PPE is required in the eyes of the employer. (I am of the opinion that SC's are employees, even though they aren't paid).

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Paul Check out the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 for the application of HASAWA to the police. Paul

Posted By Diane Thomason Paul L's reference says this: After section 51 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 there is inserted- "Application of Part to police. 51A. - (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person who, otherwise than under a contract of employment, holds the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet shall be treated as an employee of the relevant officer. (2) In this section "the relevant officer"- (a) in relation to a member of a police force or a special constable or police cadet appointed for a police area, means the chief officer of police, (b) in relation to a person holding office under section 9(1)(b) or 55(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (police members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad) means the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or, as the case may be, the Director General of the National Crime Squad, and (c) in relation to any other person holding the office of constable or an appointment as police cadet, means the person who has the direction and control of the body of constables or cadets in question. On voluntary work in general, the directgov web site has guidance which includes this: "Health and safety Under health and safety law, an organisation only has to have one paid employee to be an employer. If you’re volunteering for an employer, it must assess any risks to your health and safety and take steps to reduce them – just as if you were a paid employee. If there are different health and safety risks for volunteers than employees, then the protection you’re given should reflect this." from http://www.direct.gov.uk...T_ID=10028085&chk=V7Msx/ I thought that being an "employee" or "worker" didn't depend on having a contract of employment, but can't at the moment find any references.

Posted By Graeme They are reffered to as 'Special Police Constable' and they are required to sign a 'contract of employement' Still confused, potentially it look like they do and dont have to provide under contradicting legislation?

Posted By Diane Thomason In the red corner..... I would think that in para (1) highlighted by Paul D, the word constable includes special constable. I can't belieeeeeve they are not classed as employees when they are referred to in police force documents as "staff" and have the same powers as other constables (unspecial.) The home office blurb says they get all their "protective clothing" free. Are safety shoes non-protective clothing then? Plus I maintain that the status of volunteers working for employers is such that they have the same H&S rights as paid staff (see directgov stuff above). My guess is that someone in the force has made some kind of mistake here. Otherwise why would footwear be singled out as the only bit of uniform and PPE that the person has to pay for? Anyway I'm seeing if I can get some informal info from a law lecturer here. This has got too interesting to let go!

Posted By C Kane As I understand, the Special Constabulary are given a 'boot allowance' to cover costs for footware.