Hi, I'm having an interested debate with my seniors re the supply of PPE to sub-contractors / self employed. We work in the construction industry, (albeit at the extreme edge) and have a a large team of installers who we employ on a self employed basis. The way the contracts of work are set up means they are only employed by us when they are allocated a job, so effectively on a day to day basis. We insist that they only work for us, and provide them with work every day, every week, every month etc. We also tell them what to do, how to do it, when to do it etc, provide them with a van, fuel etc, if they can have time off (unpaid) etc etc. We provide training on the installations and specific hazards ie asbestos, work at height, manual handling. We provide gloves and insist that the right ones are worn for specific tasks, we provide respirators and coveralls for "unlicensed) asbestos removal. We expect the s/e to provide their own safety shoes, googles and hard hats, even though it is our policy that they be worn. I am aware that the requirement is to treat self employed as employees for HS purposes and consider that due to the amount of control we have over our installers, they are in effect "employed" and we should provide all PPE. The "other side" argues that they are absolutely self employed and are the same as an electrician who is contracted to a building site to provide a short term service (re our daily contracts) and then goes and works for someone else, and therefore we should not be supplying PPE. I agree that they may be self employed for tax purposes, (although suspect that the taxman may argue otherwise) and this seems to be the basis if the "other sides" argument. I am aware of the "truly self employed" argument and consider us to not meet the requirements of this. Despite my best efforts, we have failed to agree!! Any opinions, guidance, examples, etc? Looking for practical advice, not the "leave now" sort as this aint an option at present!!! Plus I don't like conceeding when I know I'm right? Holmezy

Slightly of topic but if you employed someone that solely works for you on a permanent basis then they are not self employed as you need to have more than one client to be self employed as i understand it from the HMRC point of view. Just a thought.

Some info links to support your arguments. http://www.personneltoda...9/master-or-servant.html Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths

Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners (Contractors) Ltd [1976] IRLR 346 is referred to by the HSE on this page - http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...us-specific.htm#P21_3776 Quote "Labour-only subcontractors 12. Labour-only subcontracting is particularly common in the building and construction industry . In this situation, the main contractor engages the labour needed on a project by sub-contracting specific jobs to workers (sub-contractors). The legal status of such a worker depends on the normal application of the various criteria listed above. The courts have shown a willingness to overlook the fact that the worker is described as "self-employed", if the other factual circumstances actually point towards employment. 13. In one case 14, a general labourer was engaged by a firm of builders and was expressly told that he was working as part of a "lump" labour force. He was paid an hourly rate without deductions for tax and national insurance, but was provided with tools and was subject to the day-to-day control of the site agent with regard to what to do and where to do it. The court held that the labourer was an employee of the building firm despite the express intention of the parties that he was to be a self-employed labour-only subcontractor. " Similar document on worker status on the HMRC site can be found here - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/e...yment-status/index.htm#1

As has already been said [if things are as U have said] these people are not self employed irrespective of what the 'other side' think and any contract paperwork that U may have is pretty useless ---- just ask the tax and national insurance people [which would open up a can of worms] even if U do not directly control the guys on a day to day basis -- if the national insurance people get involved it will cost your company far more that almost any HSE involvement So lets get up to date and supply the PPE [which I am sure that your Co has priced for in your bid & I bet that the 'other side' do not want to pass on the fees they have collected for the said PPE to the so called 'self employed ' lads

At first sight I am inclined to agree with John Murray (now there's a first!). In general I suggest that a 'genuine' sub contractor would provide for their own kit, PPE etc. However, if the 'relationship' is close, for example you had direct control over their work activities, then they may be regarded as employees for some aspects of health and safety provision, and I suppose that may include PPE. There was a recent thread of training for sub contractors that threw up some interesting points that may be relevant to your post and has some case law as well. I'm sorry but I can't recall the name of the thread though, sorry.