Posted By Andy Cameron
I seek advice please. My Company has an HR operated Eye testing arrangement with Spec Savers. One employee discovered that having used their usual, prefered Optician that the company would not refund their cost.

Given the company has a duty to pay for a test, surely by refusing to reimburse the empoyee they are in effect refusing to fund an eye test and as such are in breach of regulations?

There appears to be no written policy that clearly communicates to employees the specsavers arrangements or that "other" claims will be refused.

Posted By Ron Hunter
The employer has a legal duty to provide on request - not to pay on request. Moral of the story: ask first.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
To what extent have you discussed, in person, with HR
a. their reasons for their actions (which you may simply not know)
b. options they see available to resolve the problem.

As a member of both the IOSH and the CIPD, I should say that the standard programmes of accreditation for HR professionals, i.e. those through their own chartered institute, include practically nothing about any specific area of health and safety management. If you expect them to understand your legitimate concerns, why not establish first the calibre of their understanding of your work and more specifically your employer's health and safety responsibilities.

Posted By Ian Johnson
Hi Andy,

We have just set up our DSE policy and Corporate Eye Care Scheme. We have a lot of DSE users in our company and needed to make sure we were complying with the relevant legislation. We spoke with many different providers and all said the same thing- as long as you have a Policy that states employees requesting a free eye sight test and corrective appliances use the provider we select then we have covered our legal obligations.
We went with D&A in the end as they offered us the best scheme for our organisation. Specsavers was better in price but we did not want to buy a book of vouchers in advance that either wouldn't be used or would be used by non employees. D&A do an invoice scheme where we only pay if the employee actually goes and has the eye sight test. We also kept our HR Manager involved throughout the selection process to make sure we were complying with HR legislation as well.

Hope this helps.

Ian

Posted By Pete48
Andy, I do not think it is as clear as you think. Whilst the company may choose to reimburse this employee, they would be doing so of their own volition and not as a duty unless the employee had formally requested a test before hand and then not been advised of the company scheme.
Some questions that might need to be addressed if this went to formal review and possible action.
Has this employee been advised that they are classified as a DSE user by their employer? What does "appears to be no written policy that communicates" mean. Sorry but there either is or there isn't such a document.
It is strange that a system for using a specific testing house is in place but nothing else. Maybe it does exist but the employee alleges that they are unaware of it, or the procdure is just a little old and dust covered. (you know, it is a safety procedure and who ever looks at them!!)
Why did the employee have an eye test? At what point in the process were they aware that their employer may be required to pay for this eye test? Did the employee request a test from the employer before having it done?
Exactly what sort of test did they have? Was a report passed to the employer stating clearly what correction was required and why? Or was this a standard eye test arranged by the employee under their personal routine testing during which the testing house asked questions about working with DSE?

A couple of extracts from the HSE website.

"Under the regulations, the employer should provide an eye and eyesight test after it has been requested by a user. The employer does not have to pay for tests users have had - he could arrange to provide another test instead. However, in practice, reimbursement of an employee for a test they have already had might be equally satisfactory from the employer's point of view and is clearly preferable for the user."

"For the purpose of these Regulations, a report should also be made to the employer, with a copy to the employee, which should state clearly whether or not the employee needs a corrective appliance specifically for his or her work at the VDU."

So, not as clear cut as the thread implies thus far. A goodwill gesture may be appropriate if your allegation of procedural failings are true; but that is all it would be IMHO.