Rank: New forum user 
|
I am wondering if anyone knows of any recent case law, regarding personnel selling PPE which has been issued to them. I have a member of staff whom has recently been issued new PPE but is selling their old PPE via an internet auction site, I understand that this is probably just a management issue but if anyone has any advice I would be very happy to recieve some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
this is a management issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
How about if you just replace PPE, whereby you collect the old items and dispose of yourself. I don't think there's anything you as a company could do legally to the employee other than prevent from the root.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
PPE is provided, and not usually given, to the employee and strictly speaking would not normally be the employee's to sell.
No big deal you might think, but what's to stop the employee continuing to use the old stuff and selling the new?
Best advice, when issuing "new for old", ensure the old is returned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is simply down to a management decision. The kit always belongs to the company not the user, they paid for it and issued it to staff as part of the protection regime they have in place. If they renew the kit, they could just collect the old stuff for disposal or let the employee get rid of it. Either way the company is probably not that worried. What concerns me a bit is the fact that some older kit is being withdrawn because possibly it is either out of date (Ihard hats) or had deteriorated to a point that it no longer meeets the requirements. Someone selling this could be putting the buyer at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What PPE is it? I am not sure that anyone would want my old safety shoes! Seriously though; how could the buyer be sure it is safe to use? You would not buy a second hand cycle or motor cycle helmet or child seat unless you were sure of its history
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
By the way, if someone sells the kit woithout the company's permission they are guilty of theft and could be procecuted for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It’s highly unlikely that they would be guilty of theft Bob, you would firstly have to prove criminal intent?
Next you would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the company has suffered loss? Quite difficult as they were already replacing the PPE, assuming they were coming to the end of their life.
In terms of theft, you would also need to address the ownership of goods, this may not always be the person/body who has originally purchased the item.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In Scotland, theft is defined as:
"the taking and appropriating of property without the consent of its rightful owner or other lawful authority."
Seems straightforward enough. We also have "reset".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, even in Scotland you have to prove criminal intent.
Theft is never straightforward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think anything you buy from an aution site it's buyer beware espeially when it comes down to PPE etc. i have bought and sold loads of stuff on an auction site you just need to use common sense.
If the company is not asking for the old items back when providing new then the company could only assume the employees are taking the items home so i don't see how theft would come into it. unless the company was taking back the old items and disposing of them in the waste bins and the employees where removing them, then it would be theft IF the company was not aware of them doing this, if they where aware them doing this and made not attempt to stop it or give warning then it would not be theft.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
All, thanks for the suggestions, and please feel free to keep them coming!
At the moment I can't go into to much detail but it could be along the lines of someone selling personal issue millitary clothing which has been recalled, and new items provided.
I am not talking about a sweaty pair of safety boots or scratched goggles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There was an article in the news last week about soldier who'd shifted £6k worth of kit on that well known website. It resulted in a prosecution (which seemed odd as I would have thought he'd have been court marshalled instead
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
mdh wrote:All, thanks for the suggestions, and please feel free to keep them coming!
At the moment I can't go into to much detail but it could be along the lines of someone selling personal issue millitary clothing which has been recalled, and new items provided.
I am not talking about a sweaty pair of safety boots or scratched goggles. there was story on the news a couple of years ago about soldiers selling equipment on ebay while there colleagues out on the front line had no kit at all. I think the management need to make it clear that all old equipment need to be returned when new kit is issued it will stop it ending up on auction sites either being sold incorrectly for it's proper use or buyers wanting souvenirs or collectors items from the war. Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
PhilBeale wrote:mdh wrote:All, thanks for the suggestions, and please feel free to keep them coming!
At the moment I can't go into to much detail but it could be along the lines of someone selling personal issue millitary clothing which has been recalled, and new items provided.
I am not talking about a sweaty pair of safety boots or scratched goggles. there was story on the news a couple of years ago about soldiers selling equipment on ebay while there colleagues out on the front line had no kit at all. I think the management need to make it clear that all old equipment need to be returned when new kit is issued it will stop it ending up on auction sites either being sold incorrectly for it's proper use or buyers wanting souvenirs or collectors items from the war. Phil If it's kit issued directly to the individual soldier it should be on their 1033 (or whatever the current equivelent is). If it's not handed back or cannot be shown on request they could have their pay docked for the value and could faces charges under military law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am a little puzzled about the original post!
1. Is there case law on selling PPE specifically? I very much doubt it.
2. What 'crime' are you suggesting is being committed? If theft, then yes, oodles of case law!
I am struggling to understand the 'problem'. If you don't want them to sell their old PPE (who the heck would want to buy it anyway) then I suggest that when you replace PPE, ask for the old stuff back! If it isn't worn out or otherwise U/S, I have to ask why it is being replaced in the first place.
Is there more to this than meets the eye?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
freelance safety wrote:Ron, even in Scotland you have to prove criminal intent.
Theft is never straightforward. No, proof is required of dishonest intent, not criminal intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
mdh
Just a shot in the dark here is this speciallised PPE to a certain area of the military and civilian personnel working for the MoD? As part of a new supply and maintenance contract for such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron, to prove theft (a criminal act) you have to prove intent (criminal intent) not dishonesty. No requirement for dishonest intent for the criminal act of theft.
Personally I cannot see why the employer has not asked for the PPE to be returned if this is such an issue for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
mdh,
It's going to be difficult for anyone to answer this question without knowing whether the person in question is subject to military law because if they are, it is more likely that this would be used to deal with them.
I'm going to suggest that as we haven't the feintest idea what type of PPE we are talking about (save that it is not sweaty old safety boots or scratched goggles) and we don't know whether the person is a serving serviceperson or a civilian, we could imagine it might be a kevlar helmet or body armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
OK let's bottom the side discussion about what constitutes theft...
Theft Act 1968 Section 1 " A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
Section 2 discusses "dishonestly"; paraphrasing - he would not be dishonest if he believed he had the right to take it, or the owners consent to take it. So in these circumstances you may have to prove that the individual knew that the old PPE did not belong to him; or that the issuer had not given consent for its sale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
That said then, if it is what I think it is then parts of the PPE were required to be returned while other parts were left to the individual to dispose of. So as long as the returned parts were not sold then it wouldn't be theft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Edwardh, quite correct. You have to prove that the motive was intentional to commit. In this case, with the details provided we cannot make that judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
mdh, I think Smurf has it right at #20. You set the hare running and we all sort of chased after it, but in fairness you can't realistically expect to get a 'usable' answer when we only have half the story!
We seem to have a side discussion going on about theft, intent etc. Is theft the issue here? If so, then I suggest this isn't a health and safety issue at all, if it ever was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.