I work for a specialist subcontractor and the principal contractor on new site has just brought in a glove policy that dictates only a specific brand of glove to be used on the site. These particular gloves are colour coded according to the level of protection they offer. The various gloves we already carry a stock of, have tried and tested and normally provide to our operatives either mirror or exceed the protection ratings of the other "specified glove" brand, although they are not colour coded in the same manner. The specified brand are more expensive so I am reluctant to toe the line for no benefit in terms of protection. My question is, can they dictate a specific brand or merely a minimum protection level required level for each operation? Is it simply a case of their site, their rules?

They may have dictated this to make compliance checks easier. Ultimately, it's their call. They are afterall, your customers.

I'm with Chris. I'd suggest that the principle contractor is in a dangerous position by specifying the gloves you must use without assessing the hazards you face. It's not as simple as low, med and high risk. Getting it wrong is a costly business as Threllfall -v- Hull City Council shows

Boblewis - In my view the sub-contractor's 'client' is the PC as presumably his contract will be with the PC and not the PC's client. Be that as it may, the simple fact is the PPE, such as gloves, is technically a 'last resort', as described in the PPE Regulations. My concern is primarily where gloves are being provided as protection against chemical hazards - and there are plenty of these on the average construction site. PPE must then provide 'adequate control' to comply with COSHH. The suitability of gloves for such a purpose is determined both by the nature of the chemical hazard and the nature of the task. The performance of a glove can vary enormously depending on a whole range of factors. In a study we conducted some time ago jointly with Sunderland University testing glove performance under actual conditions of use one glove's performance with the same chemical (manufacturer's given permeation breakthrough time to EN374-3 was 36 minutes) ranged from in excess of two hours in one task to 5 minutes in another. Mixtures of chemicals is another factor. One manufacturer's glove provides >240 minutes nominal permeation breakthrough time with each of toluene and methy-ethyl-ketone but only 9 minutes with a 1:1 mixture of these chemicals. So a 'blanket' approach runs a very considerable risk that the gloves provided will not provide adequate protection. Selection and use of gloves for chemical protection is much more complex than at first appears (see chapter 18 in 'Protective Gloves for Occupational Use, ISBN 0-8493-1558-1) Chris