Many years ago I went through the same process on a landfill site. Many of the guys complained they had to wear PPE where it was not really needed. We looked at zoning the site so only appropriate ppe would be required. After many hours of looking at this with the guys involved we all came to the conclusion that it was unworkable. The main problem is that people moved from one area to another, often at no notice. If they were not wearing the right PPE for the "new" area they need to enter they had to come all the way back to the mess/office area, pick up the required PPE and then return to the area they needed to go. This meant lots of extra walking and time wasted. Eventually we returned to the simple 2 zones. The office/mess area where no PPE was required and beyond the fence line where all PPE was required. This stopped the excuses of "I was just walking across this zone" "I didn't realise" etc. etc.

So while I do think we need to think about where PPE or other controls are appropriate, sometimes it's as much a management/control issue rather than directly a pure H&S issue.

In think you will find this is a Network Rail requirement where Safety is treated with a great degree of respect and they do not differentiate between stations or tunnels.

I was pulled on a station at 10.00 am for not having a light on my hard hat. Network Rail Policy I was told so I got a light.

I find it is easier to comply than discuss the point.

There will be other opinions and scenarios to this but this is IMO.

Ta Alex

This comes up every so often and the issues remain the same. Some that spring to mind are:

Against their use.
They remove the responsibility from the individual to recognise and act safely when applying ppe as a risk control.
They allow employers to take a quick fix and often low cost approach to the use of ppe in their risk control strategy
They conversely give a false sense of security.
They result in wearing of ppe in situations where it is unnecessary.
They result in the use of incorrect or inadequate protection because it is generic.
Managers and others often believe it explicitly demonstrates commitment to H&S despite obvious indicators to the contrary.

For their use.
Simple to put into place and easier to manage thru' contract terms and non-compliance observations. Especially so in environments with multiple contractors working together.
Obviates the problem of making sure an employee has the correct ppe when and where they need it. (e.g you might as well wear the hard hat as carry it)
Despite their clumsy approach they have probably reduced injury severity since they became more widespread.


My experience goes back over 2 decades re this issue. The best solution we ever managed was to recognise during safety checks that sometimes an employee not wearing a piece of ppe was acceptable, recognised that with the employee at the time and reinforced their assessment that the ppe was not required for the specific task or location. Slowly but surely we improved the overall compliance with ppe standards and built a "working practice"that reinforced positive risk management by employees. This was across a number of large manufacturing plants so a somewhat different environment from a large construction project.

I often cringe when I see people wearing a vast uniform of PPE in situations that dont require it. It reminds me of the senior manager many years ago who wore his safety helmet like a badge of office. Sadly he also wore his eye protection and hearing protection in the manner of Italian film stars. They were always put up on top of his helmet without any thought for the contamination that would inevitably be smeared across the helmet. Just as well then that he never had to use them in earnest!!

p48

Ineos were relatively recently prosecuted for prescribing 100% use of gloves despite the workers pointing out that gloves could exacerbate the risks of entanglement when working near rotating parts of machinery. The accident duly followed.

Insisting on one type of PPE being worn be everyone on a site is about as sensible (and professional) as providing a stack of size 9 safety shoes and expecting everyone to wear these! Different hazards require different standards of PPE, particularly when the hazards are chemical.
Chris