Posted By Martin H Our RA shows that all FLT drivers should wear hi-vis. A policy was issued to that effect, and all said drivers have been issued hi-vis jackets AND fleeces and signed to say they have read the policy. I have just seen one of the FLT drivers walking around with a blue coat on, right underneath a "Hi-vis clothing must be worn". When challenged, he told me that his fleece was in the wash as it got dirty, so he had to wear his jacket. When I asked him to explain, he showed me that his hi-vis jacket was underneath his coat - and he also pointed out that nowhere on the sign or in our policy does it state "hi-vis clothing must be visible at all times." My fault for an incorrectly written policy, or his fault for nit-picking? I will not take offence with any replies.

Posted By Jane Blunt To be honest, I think he is winding you up. If you had put a notice to the effect that the clothing must be visible at all times, he might then have hung it from a clothes peg and pointed to it as 'visible'. Perhaps you should amend the wording of the document that they sign to indicate that it is provided to ensure that people can see them and that it should therefore worn outside any other clothing. Others will then accuse you of teaching your grandmother...... Jane

Posted By Safety officer Remind him that the clue is in the name - high visibility vest, not no visibility vest.

Posted By Renny Thomson Consider the underlying problem of needing more than one hi-vizibility fleece when the other is being laundered. Also consider if the laundering is being carried out as per manufacturer's instructions otherwise the garment may lose its properties, normally the reflective tape goes first. An alternative may be to issue warm clothing and large enough hi-viz as fit over it. This can then be replaced or laundered more easily.

Posted By riskybizz And possibly management reg 14?

Posted By Pete48 Leaving aside any specific local matters that might apply to this example, I would answer by saying that I have never seen a sign that explicitly says hi-vis to be worn on top of all other clothing and I doubt anyone would expect it either. So this is, on the face of it, a straightforward case of being caught out and giving a smart response. If this a new initiative, then sooner or later someone was going to challenge it. Acknowledge his wit and guile, you have to admit it shows a level of initiative that might be useful in the future, but and it is a big but, you must then make it clear that common sense would tell him the intention. I would also suggest that if he or anyone else really wants to have the discussion then you are quite happy to have that discussion with him and his boss or even the big boss if relevant. They may really appreciate the value of time spent discussing such esoteric matters? As others have said, there may be some practical teething problems to sort out, but that is no excuse for his non-compliance to a simple to understand safety standard.

Posted By Joe McCluskey No rewrite required. Drag the guy by the hair into his manager for a kicking for trying to be a Ar$e. What, too much !??! The guy was trying to wind you up and I probably would have instructed him to ensure he looks up the meaning of visibility - SEEN, VISIBLE. Quoting regs at these types dont really work. he was not following company policy. verbal warning, then documented details to the department or site manager JOe

Posted By steve e ashton Martin: Why are you trying to find out whose 'fault'. Smile ruefully and walk away laughing. But - next policy review - any policy - use this man to test your drafts. He clearly knows and understand how to use (and misuse) the English Language. Get his help in making future decisions / documents - and that way you both gain. You get better documents, he gets a sense of involvement and ownership. I often struggle (I get stressed and frustrated) with poorly worded documentation, and wish I had been consulted before it was issued. Yes - call it nit picking if you must - but accept that such comments / behaviours may indicate a desire for improvement (which you already appear to recognise is possible). Win win. Steve