Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Dave Morris
Please could anyone provide an opinion on the following; We currently give staff an allowance of up to £40.00 for safety shoes. We have categorized our staff by occupation into A,B,C,D categories based on risk. Category A is mandatory footwear and staff are given shoes up to the value of £40, if they prefer to spend more, then they can do. One member of staff (category A) could not find a pair under £40 that they were comfortable with and eventually purchased a pair for £55. The Company claimed back the difference of £15 in this case. I'm aware that section 9 of the General Duties of the Health and Safety at Work Act places a duty on the employer not to charge for 'things provided pursuant to certain specific requirements' including PPE, but there has to be a figure that would be seen as reasonable for the company otherwise staff could claim unreasonable costs for their footwear.
Your opinions would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Could you expand on "comfortable with" ... was this a style issue etc., or an issue of comfort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Morris
It's an issue of comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lewes
I know of different company's that operate different schemes:
- upto £30 and there after the responsibility of the employee
- Upto £17.50 and there after the responsibility of the employee
- A boot allowance of £2 a week and the employee purchases the safety footwear
- A local supplier provides a wide range of safety footwear (all different shapes, styles, functions, colours etc) and the employee has the option from the range.
To my mind the footwear must be suitable and sufficient for the work activity as defined in the RA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
If the employer has purchased the footwear then Section 9 is clear and they cannot claim back the £15, however if the employer has a good standard range of footwear on offer based upon a good PPE assessment and the employee goes elsewhere to purchases their footwear own outside this range, then section 9 does not apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Edwards
Dave,
Footwear wouldn't be suitable or sufficient if an employee was in pain due to wearing the said footwear for an 8 hour shift.
Our client issues footwear, or pays £40 towards the cost. No complaints as yet, but am waiting for the first!!
Nutty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Danny Canavan
The company should carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment which would identify the PPE required. This should then be supplied to staff. If staff are allowed to buy their own PPE how can the company ensure it is of the required standard. Section 9 applies either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kwazi Mahlobo
I would suggest that your company chooses maybe 3 type of safety shoes which everyone is mostly comfortable with instead. Everybody must be limited to the 3 type and any dispute must be handle separately and a waiver given when there is legitimate reason for not being able to use the Safety shoes available. And maybe having one or two supplier who will supply PPE to your staff might also convince the supplier/s to low their prices because of your loyalty to them. Currently your company is exposed because staff can buy any substandard safety shoes that may at cost more then what your company budgeted for. This way you can control the cost and quality/type of the safety shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MS
I know of a company paying £500 for a computer chair for an employee with a bad back.
Consider what it would cost if the employee had an accident and he stated that a factor was that his boots didn't fit comfortably.
My advice is pay the extra few quid and be done with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Maybe the employee can't find a "comfortable" pair for a reasonable price, but I bet the employer could, using their purchasing power to obtain a much better discount.
I'm generally against the "allowance" approach as it then becomes difficult for the employer to determine that the PPE is suitable.
Would any employer adopt this approach for RPE for example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lawrence Laing
We also have a £40 limit and charge staff if they require a more expensive shoe or boot but we do offer a large range.
We had 2 or 3 who were advising of problems (one was a diabetic) and we got the supplier in and he managed to sort them out without too much trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
This reminds me of my days as an apprentice when the standard issue with the railways was the classic safety boot known as the BR1 !!!
We did have the option of upgrading to a better quality boot at our own expense (which we usually took up!!).
I remember discussions at the time centred around the quality of the boots however the defining line for the railway at that time was that the boot met the necessary safety standards as defined by legislation / guidance.
Still think this is a reasonable benchmark with which to gauge a 'PPE allowance'. I'm sure a quick 'google' (using minimum standards as a guide for whatever class of work) would allow a reasonable price to be determined fairly easily.
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Rowley
We have a selection of 3 types of safety boot, they all conform to the standard we require under the findings of our risk assessment. There is a basic boot at no cost, slightly better boot for a little cost and finally the even better boot for just a slight bit more. This way we can always ensure that all our employees have the correct standard of boot that we require.
We have had no complaints in the last 3 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Priest
Hi,
Don't laugh! But I carried out an accident investigation whereas an employee had purchased a pair of rigger boot's using monies from his employer. The employee sustained his injury because he had fallen out of his boots (the fur lined type). It was clear that these boots should not have been worn for the operation that was carried out.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.