Rank: Forum user 
|
Under section 9 of HSW Act, no charge can be made to the worker for the provision of PPE which is used only at work. Under Reg 11 of PPE Regs, employees have a responsibility to report any defects or loss of PPE.
As an employer if you have an employee who consistently loses or cannot provide the defective PPE he wants replacing would it be a case of beginning disciplinary actions instead of charging the employees due to section 9 of HSW Act?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sections 7 and * of the H&S@W Act spring to mind here; I suggest that HR need to be made aware of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Toby,
Do you know why they keep losing it?
Do they have storage lockers or similar?
Is it being nicked?
Are other employees hiding it on them?
Are they taking it home and flogging it on ebay?
Is it just that the work they do means the PPE provided doesn't last very long?
Are they trained in its proper use?
Is the PPE provided durable?
When you have the answers to these questions you might be in a better position to know what to do.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
* = 8
DOH!! - of for the joy of an edit function
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
There’s always the option of discipline. If you have records of issuing of the PPE and the amount of times it’s been issued and it’s being abused, then yes.
I’m sure you have done this, but, why is the person consistently losing the PPE? Is there an underlying issue that makes the loss of PPE, for them, a way of expressing an issue? So rather than discipline, it could be more related to a capability issue.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
* = 8
DOH!! - of for the joy of an edit function
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My advice is don't let this become a H&S issue.
The chap is misusing company property - let management deal with it on those terms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You are likely to get a range of potentially contradictory responses to this.
For the most part, I would suggest that PPE is both ‘signed for’ and exchanged on a one to one basis. I accept that this may not be appropriate in some cases though.
As has already been said, you do need to identify the reason(s) for the loss and that this will help inform the answer to your question.
However, I don’t think that S9 expressly prohibits charging for replacements where the loss has been through ‘negligence’ of the end user. Others, I accept may well think differently.
Arguably, if you have a reasonable and robust system for the issue, replacement and secure storage of PPE, then dealing with these sort of problems will tend to be a bit easier.
I am not sure if this person is 'misusing' company property. Identify the cause(s) first and take it from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.