Posted By bereznikov Hi Ronan, In what sense wearing gloves - Construction? Chemical? Electrical? Manual handling? Sharps? Biological etc etc bereznikov

Posted By Philip McAleenan Ronan, Risk assessment is an intellectual process analysing a situation; it is something you do rather than something concrete you can pick up or have. Competent workers will be capable of assessing the situation and deciding whether use of the gloves is appropriate for their safety in that situation. Any other workers’ assessments will have been for situations other than yours and their conclusions not applicable. If your workers conduct their own assessments their conclusions will be appropriate and relevant. Regards, Philip

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ronan Presumably it is a construction site. In which case most injuries occur to the fingers and hence fingerless gloves negate the wearing of gloves. Not sure anyone will be able to assist with your RA. Personally, I dislike the mandatory use of PPE and especially gloves. Another example of h&s going OTT. Ray

Posted By Chris Packham Gloves used for protection are personal protective equipment. It is a legal requirement that other means of preventing damage to health are identified and implemented (so far as reasonably practicable) before gloves are provided. Simply providing gloves as the primary means of protection could well put the employer in the position of not complying with the PPE regulations. Furthermore, even for physical protection, the selection and use of gloves needs to be treated with care. It is highly unlikely that a single glove used across a whole site would be suitable for each and every task. Thus there is a risk that a worker may use an inappropriate glove and suffer injury. Having no task specific risk assessment the employer could find themself in some difficulty. The selection and use of gloves for chemical protection is even more complex. For example, the manufacturers' published performance data does not tell you how a glove will perform in practice, so relying on this could be putting your workers at risk. If you need more on this, there is a book on the subject. Protective Gloves for Occupational Use (second edition), ISBN 0-8493-1443-7. Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Mandatory policy of wearing gloves across site. Gloved hand drawn into rotating machinery. Result amputation Defence in court......? Chris

Posted By MCK So, i appreciate there is a balance to find but what is the most significant hazard, a joiner dropping the odd screw due to full fingered kevlar gloves, or the joiner cutting his fingers whilst wearing half finger protection kevlar gloves, and handling steel metal stud partisions??

Posted By Chris Packham The problem with the thin, cut-resistant gloves is the level of cut resistance that is provided. There are five different levels specified for cut resistance. Most of these thin gloves will only be performance level 1, or perhaps 2, whereas what is needed for a particular task might be level 4 or 5. Wearing the inappropriate glove might lead to a false sense of security and to injury. There is always a trade-off between protection level and dexterity. The higher the level of protection the less dexterity is possible. This is just one example of why a global policy of glove wearing can actually cause more problems than it solves. You need different gloves for different tasks. So the specification of which glove should be worn must be associated with the risk assessment. Chris

Posted By John J OK perhaps I should qualify my statement. The gloves I use for general purpose are cut level 3 and recommended by the manufacturer during a glove survey. They won't protect against crush protection.