sun screen is not PPE - cover up is the message If staff want to use sun cream /sun block they can; but they supply and apply it

I know they are to cover up; but what about their face and neck?

Ffion, try these links, they contain some useful info: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg337.pdf http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg147.pdf Remember: UV radiation should be considered an occupational hazard for people who work outdoors.Risk assessment should identify this and also the control measures i.e. cover up/sun screen, if the risk assessment identifies sunscreen as a control measure then employees are obliged to use it. I do know of employers that provide it to employees Les

Phil, The answer is Yes-as section 9 of HASAWA requires that employers cannot charge employees to meet a statutory duty. If your risk assessment has identified sun-creen as a control measure, the emplyers is required to provide it and not to charge it to employees.

Driving home and realised that it's not exactly PPE as it not Equipment. Sorry Guys

This issue of sun cream and PPE has been discussed at great length before on this forum, although I really can't remember the individual comments. In my opinion, sun cream may or may not be deemed to be PPE. It depends on the outcome of risk assessments, assuming of course, that is the route you have gone down. Many companies do provide sun cream for workers and especially for those exposed to uv rays from the Sun. The question that might be asked is whether companies SHOULD provide sun cream for outdoor workers? The company I am currently engaged with provide advice for construction workers on how to protect themselves when working in hot weather - cover up, how useful is that? Personally, I do not believe there is any obligation to provide sun cream by the duty holder (ie Employer). Clear advice on the harmful effects of sun is about as far as I would go. Not aware of any prosecutions or civil claims and I doubt a claim would be successful anyway. I have never done a RA for working outdoors in the Sun and don't intend to start now. Crack on...

Ffion, Just to clarify what I said earlier:UV radiation should be considered an occupational hazard for people who work outdoors.Risk assessment should identify this and also the control measures i.e. cover up/sunblock/cream, if the risk assessment identifies sunscreen as a control measure then employers are obliged to supply it and employees obliged to use it( I should have been clearer). Whether you want to call it PPE or not is irrelevant,the fact you have identified an Hazard ( UV radiatiion) and one of your control measures is sunblock/cream is relevant. Regards Les

In answer to your question Ffion I saw this at the WorkplaceLaw website, and here it is as it was published - might be worth searching for the Australian court case: A law firm has warned that UK employers could face legal action if they fail to protect their workers from skin damage caused by the sun, following a landmark case in Australia. The case concerned workers who contracted skin cancer after long hours working outdoors. They successfully sued their employers for not providing adequate sunscreen. The Australian court found the employer liable for damages. Richard Biggs, associate at law firm Ralli, said British firms could find themselves facing action if they fail to protect the skin health of their staff. He advised that although temperatures in the UK do not reach the same heights as in Australia, the UK sun is still damaging for those spending long periods of time without protection. He said: "The sun's cancer-causing properties are well known. The risk to those working outdoors should not be ignored. "Under health and safety law, every employer should make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the health and safety risks for employees at work and also guard against specific risks to their employees. "Protective equipment must also be provided wherever there is a risk to health. Employers must ensure that sufficient safety information must be readily available for staff." Employers are bound by a number of regulations to take steps to ensure their employees are reasonable safe at work. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation states: "Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of the employees to which they are exposed whilst at work." The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations state: "An employer is to guard against specific risks to their employees and must make all relevant health and safety information available to their work force". The Personnel Protective Equipment at Work Regulations state: "An employer must provide appropriate personnel protective equipment and training in its usage to their employees wherever there is a risk to health and safety". Biggs said: “It does not take a huge amount of imagination to consider that a UK court may well find an employer to be in breach of any of the above Regulations if they fail to guard against dangers caused by the sun. An employer only needs to take what steps are reasonable, why then is the provision of sun cream to all employees working outdoors not a very minor yet effective step? “It's time employers wised up and protected their employees against a very obvious danger.”

Well a mixed response; which is what I expected from this forum. Thank you very much guys; once again all your responses are much appreciated and have helped me immensely. Kind regards Phil PS thanks Steve for the link B-)

Steve, you are right, is was copyright issues(Sorry again Jane) however, regarding Australia: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/29864 - which was the originally removed piece http://www.cancercouncil..._caseofsunprotection.pdf http://www.actcancer.org...%20outdoor%20workers.doc I normally do not like posting a number of hyperlinks but they do contain sound advice and also provide cases in answer to the original post. Martin

As regards who pays, Section 9 of HSWA does not apply to this. the wording relates to "anything done or provided in pursuance of any SPECIFIC requirement of the relevant statutory provisions". So an employer in construction cannot charge for e.g. a safety helmet provided in pursuance of the specific requirements of the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 but could charge for e.g. eye protection since repeal of Section 65 of the Factories Act 1961 and the revoking of the Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974 (for any processes listed in the Schedules to the Regulations), since the PPE Regulations do not specifiy what PPE is to be provided. Regards, Peter

Good point helmsman. The link between the sun and skin cancer is well documented (obviously) but how would/could it be proved on a case by case basis? How could you separate work related and personal sunburn?

Mick Noonan describes the exact reason why a case wopuld be difficult to prove in a court of law. You cannot really seperate which exposure, workplace or leisure/holiday caused a specific case of skin cancer, as is so often the case in many occupational illnesses. However that does not mean we should not protect employees, just because we probably wont get caught. To repeat earlier comments, if sunblock/screen is identified as a control measure to a hazard employees are exposed to in the workplacce, then employers are legally bound to provide the control.

It most definitely should be classed as PPE and the Principle Contractor should provide a supply for the warmer months.

As regards who pays, Section 9 of HSWA does not apply to this. the wording relates to "anything done or provided in pursuance of any SPECIFIC requirement of the relevant statutory provisions". So an employer in construction cannot charge for e.g. a safety helmet provided in pursuance of the specific requirements of the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989 but could charge for e.g. eye protection since repeal of Section 65 of the Factories Act 1961 and the revoking of the Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974 (for any processes listed in the Schedules to the Regulations), since the PPE Regulations do not specifiy what PPE is to be provided. Regards, Peter Peter you left yourself wide open with the posting. Phil

Steve Yes, I was being rather flippant I must admit. However, I do get a bit cheesed when I read some of the pedantic responses. Some seem to take things to the ength degree. Okay, if you look at a worst case scenario you will always find extremes. Surely we do not manage health and safety based on extremes but on probability. I take the view that if the HSE (ORR) came and visited my sites and pulled me up for not providing adequate sun protection I would be delighted...if they were looking for an argument I believe I could justify my stance as well. For me h&s is about focusing on the real risks, not fanciful or petty. My working day is very full and if I lose sight of my real objects someone could get seriously hurt or killed - that's my justification and I sleep well on it. Peter Interesting interpretation on s9 and I would really like to know where or how you have come to this assertion - please do enlighten us.

Its is an interesting point whether suncreams are PPE. I am not aware of any legal precedence/case law on this, but the advice I had from a legal expert on health and safety some time ago was that it depends upon the purpose for which it is being provided. If the purpose is to protect the health of the person from some identified risk then would become part of the collection of protective measures and thus would become PPE. It is was being provided merely as an aid to maintaining good skin condition, e.g. as an emollient, then it would not be PPE. It was the concept of 'protection' that would be the defining factor. On this basis it might well be argued in court that the suncream, provided to protect the worker, was PPE and the provider would have to ensure that it did provide adequate control as required by COSHH. At least, this was the view of the legal expert. Chris

Chris, I think I understand where you're coming from but consider the sentence again "If the purpose is to protect the health of the person from some identified risk then would become part of the collection of protective measures and thus would become PPE" Does that mean that a tetanus jab would be PPE? The risk of tetanus is identified and the jab is part of the protective measures but, I would suggest, is certainly not PPE. Cut proof gloves, steel soled boots may also be part of the tetanus control measures and these certainly are PPE. Similarly, sun screen creams could be part of the control measures to control UV effects but PPE? I think not.

Rather than looking at sunscreen as a PPE issue, maybe its best to consider it as a solution to a workplace risk, the application of sunscreen is a control measure, the provision of this control measure should be subject to some sort of reasonableness. It might be argued that it is reasonably practicable to provide sunscreen (for free) to workers at risk. It might not be a strict legal requirement but if it were ever to be put to the test I suspect the 'reasonableness' of provision may come into play. In my view whilst concern about the overall effect of the sun might be minor, it doesnt mean it should be ignored at the expense of all the big immediate risks, that would be short termism, it just means it gets a proportianately smaller amount of effort and time, like other minor health risks.

Yep, but rather than provide it why not provide information (a campaign, even) encouraging staff to look after their own health by applying their own suncream.