Rank: Forum user 
|
Good afternoon
Has anyone come across a PC specifying which gloves must be worn on site.
It seems that some are doing this and although sub-contractors may have already assessed their PPE needs, they are being told what specific make of gloves to get.
Surely its the sub-contractors duty to assess what is needed and supply accordingly. Would the PC be liable under civil law if the subby had an accident as a result of wearing the specified gloves? I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sounds like the PC is trying to cover everything with blanket rules. We get this all the time, it's a shame because blanket rules do not always meet requirements. Most notable in my area is the "Steel toecap boots must be word when dry stone walling" when it would be much better to stipulate "Stout outdoor footwear" as many STCs are not really suitable for outdoor work and more accidents are caused by people slipping while walling than dropping stones on their feet.
It's much better to work with your subbies and to ensure their PPE (and other mitigation, training etc) is suitable rather than impose rules, but it takes more time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This shows a complete lack of understanding about gloves by the PC. (However, this is not unusual. In my work I regularly find workplaces where not a single glove is fit for the purpose for which it is being worn.)
In the first place, gloves are a 'last resort' (see ACoP for PPE regs.).
More importantly, which glove? There is no such thing as a general purpose glove that covers all situations and hazards. Indeed, wearing the wrong glove for a particular task could result in an increase in the risk of damage to health.
Given the vast range of physical and chemical hazards on any construction site I would ask the PC to confirm that by insisting on a particular glove they have done an appropriate risk assessment and confirm that this glove is suitable for the purpose, i.e. for use against all the many hazards on their site. This then puts the responsibility back on them. If they don't (or wont') then the contractor has to ask themselves whether they are prepared to put their workers at risk of damage to health in order to gain the contract, particularly since the PC is not prepared to 'put their money where their mouth is'.
This is particularly the case where chemicals are being used and the glove is intended to protect against these. This is a highly complex area where even glove manufacturers frequently cannot be precise about the level of protection being achieved, particularly where mixtures are concerned.
Just to illustrate the last point. A glove tested for each of toluene and MEK showed a permeation breakthrough time under EN374-3 in excess of 240 minutes for each. If toluene and MEK were mixed 1:1 the permeation breakthrough time dropped to just 9 minutes! And this was not even allowing for factors such as temperature, flexing, etc.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It is the employer's duty to assess the PPE requirements of their employees - not the PC. The PC can stipulate the site rules, including the PPE which must be worn. However, it is unusual for the PC to stipulate which type of glove sub-contractors must use.
If, there was an accident which for the sake of argument was caused or partly caused by the wrong type of gloves being worn, then there could be grounds for a civil claim against the PC. In the real world a very unlikely scenario. I suggest raising the matter with the PC at a contractors' meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.