Ladies & Gents, I have a situation here that I'm hoping someone out there has experience of. Our staff are required to wear tight fitting RPE during some of their tasks to protect against weld and dust particle hazards. Two personnel are refusing to shave and HR is convinced we can't force them as we could be accused of discriminating and should look at providing positive pressure hoods. If that happens I know that the issue will snowball, they will all refuse to shave, and the cost for pp hoods will be astronomical due to the number of staff involved. As we all know employees have a duty under 14(1) of the management regs to use the safety equipment provided. I would be very surprised to hear that H&S law could be trumped by equality / discrimination / freedom of expression laws and I am convinced that HR are wrong. So, has anyone got experience or knowledge they can share please? Couple of things to note, (1) the beard thing is not related to religious beliefs, it is purely a fashion statement. (2) LEV is not an option due to the environment in which the work is done. (3) It isn't stated in their contract of employment that they must be clean shaven.

Thanks for the response Invictus. However, doesn't really help because I could equally just throw Reg 14(1) of the MHSAW at HR, which I have done. However, HR seem to be convinced that we should accommodate our bearded brethren by providing very expensive alternative RPE in the form of PP hoods. However, im my opinion that is unreasonably due to the costs involved, and as I explained in my original post, we will end up issuing them to everyone at huge expense.

Regulations are not guidance. It is criminal law that all prescribed duty holders under the regulations must comply with.

Havn't the Management regs have been withdrawn

L21 was withdrawn, not the regs themselves

You are correct. Sounds like your HR department need further competence training

Another interesting conundrum. I suggest the answer must be consistent with any refusal to shave. For example, suppose the two workers concerned would not shave for religious reasons - what would you do then?

I have a legal duty to protect operatives from a hazard, don't want to shave and wear a mask and the director refuses to pay for an alternative then I simply don't allow them to work on that task. a solution will soon be found when a director is paying for operatives to stand around with their hand in pockets

Is this a new requirement or a new drive to enforce an existing requirement? As a bearded chap myself I have some sympathy, a beard is not a fashion statement it's the natural state of your face, it is shaving that is the fashion statement! If I were the operative I'd contribute towards the cost of the positive pressure RPE. Neither Mrs T, any of my children or my grandchildren have seen me without a beard!

We don't have freedom of expression; people in the USA have freedom of expression. Human rights/employment rights confer specific rights and duties, not general freedoms. About the only general freedoms we have are related to property. However, I have to agree with alfasev that sacking them would be fraught with pitfalls. Furthermore reg 3(c) puts the onus on the employer to provide PPE that fits correctly. It seems to me that you have to provide PPE for the actual facts of the situation. Beards are an actual fact, if somebody's contract doesn't say that they can't grow a beard, then there's nothing to stop them doing so and the employer has to deal with it. That's how I'd see it, anyway, John

No nothing new, just ignored Its been in COSHH for a number of years All that's happened recently is the narcissistic younger generation "know all about their rights" (except they don't).

Really interesting discussion here. One for IOSH magazine, I think. I found an article in Health and Safety at Work - http://www.healthandsafe...ontent/refusal-wear-ppe. It's an informative read, especially the last few paragraphs. It highlights an EAT ruling about footwear which states: "An employment tribunal upheld his claim of discrimination but the Employment Appeal Tribunal later reversed this decision. It held that the employer's risk assessment had deemed that PPE was necessary. In this case, the employer must take reasonable steps to find PPE suitable for an individual employee and if this is not practicable then it must look for suitable alternative work. But if neither is available, duties under health and safety law override employment law." So the question is: Are hoods reasonably practicable alternatives?...

Sorry but I don't see the problem here. If the company's view is that providing hoods is the answer then so be it. Why are you worried about the cost? Is it coming out of your pocket? If the cost escalates then that is the company's problem not yours. All you need to do is present the company with the options and leave them to make the decision.

Wait wait wait, where did this falllacy come from that hooded powered respirators are more expensive!? If you take the example of single use disposable respirators, then costs are practically even, if not cheaper to use powered hoods. If you dont believe me lets do a quick albeit rough comparison: 1 employee uses 1 mask per day* The cost of the disposable mask is £2.50** The employee works and needs to use a mask for 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year = cost of 1 years P3 dusk mask supply is £500 a year, or £2500 for 5 years. The cost of a top of the range hooded, battery powered respirator ~£500*** Filters require replacing once a month at most, costing £25 a month or £300 a year = £500 + £1500 or £2000 total cost for a 5 year period initial outlay and a LOT of replacement filters) replacing the unit every 5 years *in reality this could be several masks per day, as masks get damaged or dirtied and discarded during break periods ** yes you could get cheaper masks, but for one which is able to pass a fit test, has a good construction and an exhalation valve you could be looking easily at a LOT! more. *** £180 for batteries and charger, £220 for hood, £100 for tubing and initial filters So when comparing a extremely cheap disposable, with a extremely good powered respirator, with very conservative margins built in, the powered hood comes in cheaper. Additional factors to consider, but again these wil be paid off the more purchased and longer used: Storage and cleaning of powered hoods Use of electricity Training of users - usually free from the supplier But this can be offset by the benefits, not just financial: Does not require costs for face fit testing Does not interfere with other PPE eg. safety glasses / goggles Provides a higher level of protection, 4x rather than 20x WEL Whilst there may be some rare occasions for replacement parts from wear or damage, a 5 year use is very conservative. I do not make or sell these systems, but I often recommend them where users regularly require to use disposable masks and have seen many sites implement them with great sucess, both on the costs as well as the uptake and feedback from the user (cooler, not sweaty, don't fog, easier to use/fit etc..) I would be happy to write up a case study / real workplace example using photos from one of our actual workplaces if someone from SHP gets in touch. Des Though also to be considered, remember PPE is the last resort, if your spending £2500 a year per employee, 5-10 employees in the area, it wont take many years to recover the initial costs of an engineering an control system, containment or ventilation.

I know this topic comes up from time to time and I'm not saying I know the answer but if you consider Reg 4 of PPE regs it talks about suitable personal protective equipment, and that it must by capable of fitting the wearer correctly, if necessary after adjustments. No where can I see that it is the wearer that must be adjusted! Just a thought.