Now here’s an interesting concept..!

I’m guessing that Barr simply got fed up with supplying their subbies with PPE. And that this practice arose because although the contract with the subbies implied (even if it didn’t specifically state this) they were responsible for supplying their employees with PPE but when subbie’s employees turned up without PPE the job didn’t start because they didn’t have what was required.

But one has to ask whether this approach contravenes the duty not to charge employees for anything provided in pursuant of a legal duty/requirement. (sec9)

I’m thinking that it doesn’t – because there is no legal duty for a contractor to supply PPE to bona fide sub-contractor’s employees. But what if the subbie was a LOSC, where those people might be regarded as employees of the contractor?

Does this whole issue depend upon the status of the sub-contractor? And if so, during the morning rush to start work how will Barr's site supervisor sort out the bone fides from the labour only!/! Any views?

http://www.constructione...ty-gear-to-barr-subbies/

Phil

I think that Barr has it correct. They are not the sub-contractors employers. The duty to provide PPE rests with the sub-contractor as a separate employer. Rather than turn these (sub-contractor's) employees (many of whom will be self employed) away and delay the project it makes sense to insist that non-Barr employees follow the site rules; no PPE no work.

The issue of reclaiming the money back is not a matter for Barr's.