Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi
Can a company put a maximum price of £35.00 on safety footwear, I know under section 9 of the 1974 HSE act that no charges can be made.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There is no lower limit for the cost of PPE. All you need to do is to ensure it meets the minimum specification standards, is suitable for the hazard it protects against and suitable for the wearer.
We usually pay around £25 for safety footwear and provide that if the wearer wants anything with some 'street cred' they pay the difference.
£35 is generous...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
£35 is our allowance too - anything more expensive then they pay the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In answer to the specific question
"Can a company put a maximum price of £35.00 on safety footwear..?" I suggest that the answer is 'no'. I know that many employers to tend to provide a standard range on such a basis, and there is nothing wrong with this approach, but the employer is required to provide the PPE that not only protects against the identified hazards but which is also suitable for the kind of work that is being done and the suitable for the individual. An employer may well be able to do that within the £35 limit for the majority of employees however, if an individual employee has a specific need that cannot be met from the £35 limit then I suggest that an additional charge to meet this need would be in breach of S9.
Street cred isn't an S9 duty and could attract an individual contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks all for your replys.
One of the guys has Spur Heel and the cheap boots arn't much good.
Thanks again
Phil Rose wrote:In answer to the specific question
"Can a company put a maximum price of £35.00 on safety footwear..?" I suggest that the answer is 'no'. I know that many employers to tend to provide a standard range on such a basis, and there is nothing wrong with this approach, but the employer is required to provide the PPE that not only protects against the identified hazards but which is also suitable for the kind of work that is being done and the suitable for the individual. An employer may well be able to do that within the £35 limit for the majority of employees however, if an individual employee has a specific need that cannot be met from the £35 limit then I suggest that an additional charge to meet this need would be in breach of S9.
Street cred isn't an S9 duty and could attract an individual contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Get OH to state the requirements and take it from there.
If your guy has spur heel - you know the condition - and it gets worse because you are trying to save a couple of pounds - and you do not provide what is required, it could be painful for the employee as well as the company!!,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thats how we do it too. Standard price for footwear (which has been through an assessment, Non-slip rated etc) if they want nice DM's or other they make up the difference unless they have a medical condition which requires them to have better boots due to better comfort, support, wide feet etc. I do give out a PPE request form which does have a Special Requirement sections which is signed of by Oc Health as mentioned by the previous Poster
Sim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As a slight aside to the question, I was once advised by HMRC that if employees were able to buy something better than the standard range and make up the difference themselves, that the whole purchase was then taxable to the employee as "benefit in kind".
Whether or not the HMRC official was being a little too officious I couldn't say as it's outside my areas of expertise, but it may be worth clarifying, particularly if it's a common practice effecting a large number of employees in your organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Chaps
Quite a hard one this - Phil Rose is bang on with the "just depends if the footwear fits the task being undertaken" if it does then yes £35 is okay if it doesn't then the cost is what it is and should be met by the employer.
So if someone wants a jimmy choo boot rather than an arco one all well and good we should just let them put extra to the £35 - sorry i disagree.
The regs say that the employer should undertake an assessment to ensure that the PPE is suitable (the right design and standard to undertake the task) - is the general operative suitably qualified to assess the BS/EN standard of his jimmy choo boot - i think not.
You should have a approved list of PPE that has been pre -assessed and the operatives or whom ever should not be able to deviate unless they go through an outwith process.
For example you have an operative who has a BMI to match pavarottis and he needs some other type of boot as it makes his lfoot sweat and cause his poor hard wearing feet to blister. The outwith process would mean that you do an individual assessment for his footwear to fit his portly feet.
Please do not moan about the rights of the chap with excessive BMI issues as he does not exist and this is an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oldroyd you are quite correct in your assumption that the standard fottwear is not appropriatr, but only partially right. It depends on the work the individual is required to do. If standard safety footwear is adequate to protect the persons feet generally they are compliant with the law. If however, he has a medical condition such as skin disease that requires ventalated footwear (only an example) the employer must take account of this when deciding on the suitability of the footwwear. If however, it is simply because the employee would prefer the more expensive footwear, then the employer fulfills his responsibility by paying for the least expensive footwear that suit the safety requirements of the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.