Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi
We now require our staff to wear everyday shoes (not safety shoes by any stretch of the imagination) that cover the whole of the foot when they work in our laboratories. We don't allow ballet pumps, sandles, flip-flops, or open toed shoes.
Since we're requesting this because a risk assessment says that normal everyday shoes covering the whole of the foot will reduce the severity of a (small 50ml) chemical spill I think this is now classed as PPE.
Some staff are saying that they do not have shoes that meet these criteria and so are asking for us to pay for them. My view is that we are now required to pay for, or at least contribute to, these shoes. I think we're duty bound to do so because it's PPE required by a risk assessment. The value we're prepared to go to is another issue altogether.
Of course once this is recognised everyone will be requiring a contribution to their footwear. I'd say that's fine provided they use it mainly for work, and not elsewhere.
Has anyone else been in a similar situation, and if so what, if any, were the unexpected consequences of taking this position. I need to be aware of these so I can prepare the management who made this decision aware of them.
The same issue applies to our requirement that staff wear trousers not skirts or dresses.
Thanks
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
That same argument would preclude bare legs and the wearing of skirts and shorts.
Appropriate Dress Code required -otherwise things are going to get silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry, I missed the very end of your post - you have also considered the clothing issues.
Still about Employee Code of Conduct/ Dress Code though.
If any one gets uppity you could provide these elasticated over-shoe protectors - they'll soon weary of that and eventually comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We have chemical R & D labs and have listed activities that require safety shoes, but we also provide safety shoes to those who do not undertake the listed activities. Therefore , those who choose NOT to make use of our safety shoes for activities that do not mandatorily require safety shoes, our local rule is that the must wear "sensible shoes" that are defined as closed uppers made of non-absorbent material that can be wiped clean, with low, non-stiletto heels <~40mm.
In our labs, the protection is from injuring feet whilst manual handling, rather than chemical spills. Where activity risk assessment does NOT specify safety shoes, our employees can choose "Occupational Footwear" conforming to EN ISO 20347:2004 (This standard must comply to basic safety requirements with anti-static or slip resistant properties, but does not have a protective toe cap)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you class this as PPE then won't you also need to get it CE marked?
I agree with Ron that this is suitable dress not PPE.
Better than contributing to their choice of shoe would be to provide a stock of suitable cheapo shoes in a range of sizes that they can sign out to wear for a day if they have turned up dressed inappropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Regarding your requirement that staff wear trousers not skirts or dresses, in a laboratory environment due to "risk", then through PPE/COSHH Regs the activities needs to be assessed, and then appropriate PPE selected and provided.
I presume that your requirement that staff wear trousers not skirts or dresses supplements lab-coats that you are already providing. If you can get away by implementing a dress code, best of luck to you, but in my professional view, if an employer assesses that an activity requires protection additional to the lab-coat in the form of trousers, then the assessment of a lab coat as suitable PPE is flawed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Many employers require staff to provide their own sensible enclosed footwear for a variety of reasons.
Would a boilersuit and spats combination work for the dissenting employees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think Graham has raised an interesting question.
For me safety footwear ( proper PPE ) is needed when everyday clothing does not protect against a workplace hazard.
We then pay for it and issue it.
At first glance this looks like a case for PPE as the risk was identified in a risk assessment. But working on my definition normal shoes would mitigate the risk and therefore PPE is not required and the regulations do not apply. Shoes that cover the foot are not in anyway special equipment.
My daughter works in a shop and my wife in a vets. Both need to wear sensible footwear. Turning around and saying they only have high heels would not get them very far.
The guys in my small warehouse unit wear jeans. They are not allowed to wear shorts as there is a very small risk of cuts and abrasions. The risk is dealt with by normal clothing so we don't issue PPE and we wouldn't allow "I don't have long trousers" to be an excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.