Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
LATCHY  
#1 Posted : 21 July 2017 12:53:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LATCHY

We currently have a matter under review concerning one of our personnel who needs to have BA ready to go whilst working on the job, recently he haas been warnedfor not shaving as the criteria is all personnel should be clenaly shaven so that if the BA is needed the correct seal can be actioned.

He as now presented us with a doctors letter advising that he as multiple skin tags on his neck and shaving could infact risk trauma and bleeding whihc could cause infection.

Could/can anyone present me with any reasonable argument and also advsie if you have dealt with a situation like this and how you overcame the obvious dilema.

I look forward an intelligent reply, thank you

LeanneD  
#2 Posted : 21 July 2017 13:12:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
LeanneD

Originally Posted by: LATCHY Go to Quoted Post

We currently have a matter under review concerning one of our personnel who needs to have BA ready to go whilst working on the job, recently he haas been warnedfor not shaving as the criteria is all personnel should be clenaly shaven so that if the BA is needed the correct seal can be actioned.

He as now presented us with a doctors letter advising that he as multiple skin tags on his neck and shaving could infact risk trauma and bleeding whihc could cause infection.

Could/can anyone present me with any reasonable argument and also advsie if you have dealt with a situation like this and how you overcame the obvious dilema.

I look forward an intelligent reply, thank you

Do you have an occupational health departement that you could refer him to?  We have had to refer people through OH due to them not being able to wear an RPE hood as it forms part of their duties in the event of a fire.

If it is part of his job description to wear the mask he is no longer able to provide full and effective service but this is more a HR issue now rather than a H&S one so might be better placed asking HR prossionals on this one.

Hsquared14  
#3 Posted : 21 July 2017 14:18:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

You haven't said what the BA is for and what type you use but have you considered other forms of protection that do not rely so heavily on the tightness of face fit but are more like the hood or snood type?  These are not so susceptible to disruption due to beard growth so could be an alternative if suitable to your application.   He could also have the skin tags removed so that he could shave again.

gerrysharpe  
#4 Posted : 24 July 2017 11:22:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

Basically if he states he cannot shave because of illeness then he off the job and put on Sick pay. You cannot shove H&S aside and still let him work. If he's not capable then whats he still doing there. Get someone whose clean shaven and capable of doing the task required

sutty  
#5 Posted : 24 July 2017 14:28:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
sutty

Simple really, if he is not adhearirng to the safety rules (put in place for his beneift), then he cannot do the job safely. If he can't do the task as per thr RAMS he can't do it safely, in which case he is removed from the job, the site or the task. 

biker1  
#6 Posted : 24 July 2017 14:41:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

With modern positive pressure BA, being clean shaven is not as much of an issue as it used to be, as any leaks will be air escaping from the mask rather than the surrounding air coming into the mask. The downside is that there is a risk the BA air won't last as long, so it depends what the person will be wearing it for. That's my understanding (in fact the guy who trained us on BA had a beard), but it's many years since I've been involved in it.

The point about someone being no longer able to do the job, or a critical aspect of it, is unfortunately true, and can come under frustration of contract. I had to dismiss on medical grounds someone years ago who was no longer able to use BA, when it was part of their job to use it.

Stuart Smiles  
#7 Posted : 24 July 2017 21:22:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stuart Smiles

Had one removed at the doctors off my back after picking part of it off, then it becoming a problem. 

the doctor said they are a bit of a faff for them as they don't get paid sufficiently for their removal to justify the time and materials that it takes to do, and should really refer to the hospital now as their surgery has a clinic but it wasn't getting sufficient throughput to justify it. I said it had been ruining shirts and needed sorting asap, and to his credit he did it a bit later the same day.   

all that they used was in effect a "medical soldering iron" (to cauterise the wound) and a scalpel to chop it off, then bit of iodine solution, swab and some tape. 

as a way forward, perhaps offer to see if there was a way of getting them removed, as the alternative seem like there is going to be a standoff between need to do it and unwillingness. 

seems however to be a different issue as they went to the doctors to get a note, perhaps the same doctor could resolve the problem to make him compliant, or speak to occ health to go for treatment via a letter from them to the doctor.  

seems to me that the individual has found a way to relinquish the role and get it given to someone else or there is potential for the hr interaction leading to dismissal and then tribunal, neither side would benefit, so a compromise is in order if desired, (which you express as an intelligent reply).

perhaps a without prejudice meeting with HR and you in attendance for a period if they refuse to address with occ health or their own doctor. note there could be an extended delay for the procedure waiting time, and you would have to have some sort of plan as to what to do in the interim, and then once that's in place. there would be questions as to why that couldn't contine longer term, so will have to get to them either doing it or not.  

there isn't going to be a middle ground as the others will also look to see whats acceptable as you're going to set a precident, so it's a question of how they get the messaging in an appropriately compliant way to take further via hr, (if needed to dismissal), whilst remiding them that they could get the issue resolved by getting it chopped off if it's in an actual area where it would affect the fit of the masks, and other masks would miss them

if they don't want to work there, or don't want to be employed with your organisation, perhaps the sooner they look the better. perhaps showing them this note would allow you to remain independent, whilst suggesting the options available, and evaluating pro's and cons. 

Don't know if redundancy is where they want to go or get to, or compromise agreement, however it would be easier for all concerned if they get back to where you are all in it working for the same objectives. 

someone in an organisation mentioned that they had employees they would be sad to loose, and some that they would be less so. depending on the categorisation, it may be a full and frank conversation that convinces all parties of the best outcome to the situation.  

Brian Campbell  
#8 Posted : 28 July 2017 14:55:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Brian Campbell

What does the manufacturer say of the BA equipment?

Is there an alternative piece of BA equipment available?  Find it hard to believe there isnt!

But i would agree with majority, if they cant do the job and use the equipment supplied then why are they there??

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 28 July 2017 15:21:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

If face fit is that critical the workers probably need to shave DURING a shift.

Raymond Bone  
#10 Posted : 28 July 2017 19:46:03(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Raymond Bone

In my past employment, the employer attempted to introduced a clean shave policy, amended the RAMS accordingly and commenced to inform employees that they needed to be clean shaven to ensure the BA could work to its maximum protection.  Some employees adhered to this and 2 totally refused!

Because of the refusals, HR refused to implement the policy and would not allow any disciplinary action to be taken.  The only resolution was to change the tasks of those who refused to shave to a task which did not require a clean shaven operative.

Hope this helps

johnmurray  
#11 Posted : 29 July 2017 08:05:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

This has to be one of the most repeated topics on here. I've been using this site for over ten years, and several times a year this topic rears its ugly head. It is hard, very hard, to not read the line "we don't like persons with beards generally, so we need a reason to tell them to shave" (innit) (Note the avoidance of gender discrimination there). This is the 21st century, but the prevalence of early 20th century work relations attitude is startling. Yes, you can force a bearded person to shave, if you REALLY want to. BUT, with the availability of a large variety of RPE, there is no fundamental reason for its necessity other than the "I can so I will" management attitude. It also sets a baseline in industrial relations: work forces have long memories. face it. The real reason is not "the RPE won't fit" The real reason is cost, and prejudice. http://www.breathefreely...ssets/rpe-fact-sheet.pdf
Bigmac1  
#12 Posted : 29 July 2017 16:42:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

It all depends on what protection factor you require and what you are trying not to breathe in, the higher the PF needed the less of a choise you have as an alternative. So in such instances clean shaven for tight fitting RPE is required. If you cant shave then alternative employment should be sought.

chris.packham  
#13 Posted : 29 July 2017 17:11:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Changing the tack slightly I have had several situations where the tight fitting half-mask has failed to protect the health of the wearer, the reason being that the mask only covers part of the face (and head). Where the chemical is a (skin) sensitiser and airborne, this type of mask leaves a large area of extra sensitive skin exposed. The exposure can be below the WEL but still sufficient in someone already sensitised to elicit an allergic reaction. When dealing with inhalation exposure how many risk assessments also consider this aspect?

Chris

Bigmac1  
#14 Posted : 29 July 2017 17:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Good point Chris, this should be picked up in the COSHH ssessment

Users browsing this topic
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.