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
Gavin Gibson  
#1 Posted : 18 September 2020 07:47:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gavin Gibson

Hi

Any clues how you have dealyt with the issue of personel who are exempt face coverings on site?

Our requirement is social distancing, hygiene and, as last resort, face covering.

Where somebody is exempt face covering (doctors note rqd?) and in some locations it is not possible to maintain social distancing, what have you done?

Aside from banning them from site?

Thanks

CptBeaky  
#2 Posted : 18 September 2020 07:59:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Are we talking employees/contractors?

Can they wear face visors? These don't restrict breathing (let's not get into the argument on whether face coverings do) and are also effective and stopping a person from spreading the virus when coughing etc.

Beyond that, if they are unable to wear a face covering for medical reasons and you can't keep them 2m+ away from other workers (without perspex sheets etc.) then I would question whether they should be returning to work yet.

A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 18 September 2020 08:05:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

People are not simply exempt for “medical” reasons. They might have mental health issues or work with someone who needs to lip read. A doctor will not know or even understand these issues. Finally, there is no legal requirement to provide proof that you are exempt.

PS I have been told by several microbiologists that a rigid shield is ineffective at preventing the spread of the virus

Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 18 September 2020 08:21:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Doctors notes are not issued for exemption and is clearly stated in the legislation.

By what right would you ban them from site if they are exempt? This is NOT a failure to comply with H&S legislation as "face coverings" are not PPE nor are the manufactured to any standard.

The regulations require those that can do, inclusion of the exemption recognises that not all can.

The regulations do not state anyone not wearing a covering must not / may not - where such draconian action occurs it is enacted by the ignorant mob.

You could ask them to wear a visor instead (the whole thing is play acting rather than actual protection anyway - even the Head of the CDC in America claimed a surgical mask would protect HIM missing the point that they are designed to protect others) BUT there are those who could also have exemption issues with visors as well as sometimes it is not about the placement but rather the proximity.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 18/09/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 18/09/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 18 September 2020 08:21:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Doctors notes are not issued for exemption and is clearly stated in the legislation.

By what right would you ban them from site if they are exempt? This is NOT a failure to comply with H&S legislation as "face coverings" are not PPE nor are the manufactured to any standard.

The regulations require those that can do, inclusion of the exemption recognises that not all can.

The regulations do not state anyone not wearing a covering must not / may not - where such draconian action occurs it is enacted by the ignorant mob.

You could ask them to wear a visor instead (the whole thing is play acting rather than actual protection anyway - even the Head of the CDC in America claimed a surgical mask would protect HIM missing the point that they are designed to protect others) BUT there are those who could also have exemption issues with visors as well as sometimes it is not about the placement but rather the proximity.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 18/09/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 18/09/2020(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#6 Posted : 18 September 2020 08:47:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

And of course if you ban someone from a work location because they have disability which prevents them from wearing a face covering you will bring down the Equality Act on your head

CptBeaky  
#7 Posted : 18 September 2020 09:05:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

And of course if you ban someone from a work location because they have disability which prevents them from wearing a face covering you will bring down the Equality Act on your head


Never thought about this. Surely if a person's disability means that you can't (through AFARP) make the workplace safe for them and those around them, then they cannot be allowed to enter? And even if you could, they wouldn't be allowed to enter unless the changes had been made and were working?

I thought the Equality act had exemptions for public safety (same as all rights). Considering there are no exemptions for religion for PPE, I assumed the Equality act worked the same way. When I said they shouldn't be returning to work, of course it would be under full pay (are using the furlough scheme).

Given that face coverings aren't PPE as they protect those around them, you would be placing other people at risk by having this person in your work area. For example a person with a history of fits would not be allowed to run a forlift as they could hurt someone else (along with themself), would this be seen as a breach of the Equality act?

I ask with genuine interest. It isn't somehting I have had to deal with, but would want to know that I was handling it right should it happen.

.

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 18 September 2020 09:27:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
you would be placing other people at risk by having this person in your work area. 

Interesting that your default is to assume the person is a carrier and therefore a risk to their colleagues.

That person is already on the bus/tube/train....

That person is already in the shop/restaraunt/cinema....

Never knew SM had affected society to the degree that we are guilty until proven innocent (by which time no one apologises)

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 18 September 2020 09:27:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
you would be placing other people at risk by having this person in your work area. 

Interesting that your default is to assume the person is a carrier and therefore a risk to their colleagues.

That person is already on the bus/tube/train....

That person is already in the shop/restaraunt/cinema....

Never knew SM had affected society to the degree that we are guilty until proven innocent (by which time no one apologises)

CptBeaky  
#10 Posted : 18 September 2020 09:49:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

I never assumed the person was infected, I assumed the person has the risk of being infected, thereby posing a risk to the workforce. We are in a pandemic, I think it is a fair assumption to make. By that logic no-one should need to wear a mask unless there is proof that the are currently contagious.

This isn't about "guilty" or "innocent", this is about public health.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Connor35037 on 18/09/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 18 September 2020 10:15:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Your workforce is permanently at risk - typically there are 128 hours per week beyond your control.
Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 18 September 2020 10:15:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Your workforce is permanently at risk - typically there are 128 hours per week beyond your control.
biker1  
#13 Posted : 18 September 2020 10:18:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

This is confusing (of course). If no medical certificate/note is required to confirm exemption, and cannot be asked for by others, isn't this open season for anyone to declare that they can't wear face coverings? If little Johnny needed a note to be excused from PE at school, surely there should be some sort of system for face coverings? The whole system is in danger of falling apart, according to this.

As an aside, I thought Sikhs were excused from wearing hard hats or crash helmets, or am I out of date on this one?

CptBeaky  
#14 Posted : 18 September 2020 10:35:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

"typically there are 128 hours per week beyond your control"

They are not at my place of work, they are not my concern. When they are at my place of work, they are my concern. Not really sure what your point is here? I am not saying that they have to wear a face covering outside of work time. I think you are straw manning rather than answering whether the Equality act has exemptions for public health issues. I know that my own protected belief (veganism), covered by the Equality act 2010, doesn't extend to public health issues, so I can't see why a disabilty would. I am not being facetious, it is a genuine question. 

Again I point out that we don't have a face covering policy in our workplace. However should we need to introduce one (if government guidance changes) then I am interested whether we would run afoul of the Equality act 2010 should we furlough a person that had a disability meaning they couldn't wear one. Totally hypothetical. Or alternatively, refused entry to someone that couldn't wear one (such as a customer).

"As an aside, I thought Sikhs were excused from wearing hard hats or crash helmets, or am I out of date on this one?"

AFIAK this is the only exception in the PPE regulations for religion, but it is actually stated as an exception, thereby over-riding the Equality act's original exemption. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l25.pdf  - Guidance 3 paragraph 16

A Kurdziel  
#15 Posted : 18 September 2020 10:51:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Face coverings are not PPE. They are a requirement under Public Health law. They are intended to protect the public from your germs do not protect you from a workplace risk (which is what PPE does).

risk assessment as I have said before doesn’t really come into it; it’s  a case of just do it

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 18 September 2020 11:50:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If the government enforced face coverings in the workplace it would need to start by applying clear demonstrable and measurable set of standards that could be scrutinised.

Then we could get in to debates of being clean shaven/religious belief and Equality.

Last time I checked the revoked Construction Hard Hat Regulations exemption had been extended to cover all turban wearing Sikh's no matter what their workplace with the exception of being an active fire fighter.

Roundtuit  
#17 Posted : 18 September 2020 11:50:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If the government enforced face coverings in the workplace it would need to start by applying clear demonstrable and measurable set of standards that could be scrutinised.

Then we could get in to debates of being clean shaven/religious belief and Equality.

Last time I checked the revoked Construction Hard Hat Regulations exemption had been extended to cover all turban wearing Sikh's no matter what their workplace with the exception of being an active fire fighter.

chris.packham  
#18 Posted : 18 September 2020 12:57:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

If the Government is going to make it a legal requirement to wear a face screen should they not also stipulate what form this has to take and how it shall be worn? After all, if the purpose is to protect others, i.e. not the wearer, surely it must be capable of achieving this. Merely watching TV just count how many times one sees masks that are obviously inadequate, or even more often are not being worn correctly. 

peter gotch  
#19 Posted : 18 September 2020 13:48:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Reference Roundtuit's comment re turban wearing Sikhs and helmets the exception extends a little beyond firefighters:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/6/enacted

But, in general the exception for construction sites has been removed.

biker1  
#20 Posted : 18 September 2020 14:58:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

If the Government is going to make it a legal requirement to wear a face screen should they not also stipulate what form this has to take and how it shall be worn? After all, if the purpose is to protect others, i.e. not the wearer, surely it must be capable of achieving this. Merely watching TV just count how many times one sees masks that are obviously inadequate, or even more often are not being worn correctly. 


Fair points Chris. The history of face covering use in this country has more to do with initial availability of masks than suitability, from what I can see. We went from proper masks to merely stipulating face coverings, which of course covers all sorts of options, many of them of dubious suitability. It is also amazing how many people don't seem to know how to wear a mask properly, perhaps we need one of the famous public information adverts. Of course, it's not just about wearing them, it's also about what you do with them when you're not wearing them, and the very real chance of contamination.
chris42  
#21 Posted : 18 September 2020 16:04:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Can’t help but feel those in construction that face the same issue as the original poster or others who may have sufficient relevant experience (in such a short time this has become an issue), we have not collectively helped the original poster, in my opinion.

They have a task that require less than two meters spacing, as per Gov guidance they can have 1m plus other control. They obviously can’t have a plastic screen which seems to have left face coverings as the only option for collective protection in their assessment. I seem to recall that collective protection is higher up the list than personal protection. However, for this to work (or potentially work as we all have little to nothing else) everyone must protect everyone else.

The problem is that some are unable (possibly unwilling) to use this method of protection. That means either don’t do the work, so all have to go home or the one or two that it affects sadly will not be able to do the work. It is not discrimination if there are no reasonable changes that can be made.

So, unless someone could suggest an alternative (now the face shield is a possibility- but as with the covering, it is questionable, but would be seen as doing something). Otherwise they seem to have little choice, but to restrict this work to those that can do it. They may have been on the train earlier without their mask, but that is not relevant as the duty on employers is different. My understanding is that H&S law trumps disability law, but of course this is not law -But is it enforceable? I think it is.

This is likely to be controversial, but hay that is what discussion is all about.

Chris

Roundtuit  
#22 Posted : 18 September 2020 18:00:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Your logic would be fine when HM Gov were picking up the bill of employees sent home unable to work.

Now the retention scheme is winding up where is their pay going to come from?

What legitimate reason will you use for sending them home? Face coverings are NOT H&S law.

Roundtuit  
#23 Posted : 18 September 2020 18:00:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Your logic would be fine when HM Gov were picking up the bill of employees sent home unable to work.

Now the retention scheme is winding up where is their pay going to come from?

What legitimate reason will you use for sending them home? Face coverings are NOT H&S law.

Chris Cahill  
#24 Posted : 18 September 2020 19:07:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Chris Cahill

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Reference Roundtuit's comment re turban wearing Sikhs and helmets the exception extends a little beyond firefighters:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/6/enacted

But, in general the exception for construction sites has been removed.

Correction:  Sikhs still have their exception Check the HSE view

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/sikhs-head-protection.htm 

Q. Are turban wearing sikhs exempt from the need to wear head protection in the workplace

"YES . Sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989 as amended by Section 6 of the Deregulation Act 2015 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any legal requirement to wear head protection at a workplace. A workplace is defined broadly and means any place where work is undertaken including any private dwelling, vehicle, aircraft, installation or moveable structure (including construction sites).

Sorry for deviating from the main thread

Edited by user 18 September 2020 19:09:46(UTC)  | Reason: typo

thanks 1 user thanked Chris Cahill for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 21/09/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#25 Posted : 19 September 2020 10:45:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks Chris Cahill - I stand corrected and having read Section 11 of the Employment Act 1989 in its amended form am somewhat puzzled about the exception relating to military personnel, but as stated a bit of a diversion from the theme of the thread.

Misread the relevant part of the Deregulation Act (and rarely confident that HSE guidance is accurate these days!)

P

chris42  
#26 Posted : 21 September 2020 08:56:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Your logic would be fine when HM Gov were picking up the bill of employees sent home unable to work.

Now the retention scheme is winding up where is their pay going to come from?

What legitimate reason will you use for sending them home? Face coverings are NOT H&S law.


I never said at any point it was law in fact if you read my post, I clearly say it is not!

The OP has done their own assessment and decided that due to being closer than 2m then the 1m plus applies to them from the Government. List plus options

“Face coverings are mainly intended to protect others and not the wearer. The risk of COVID infection at work must be managed by following the right controls, including:

social distancing or, where that is not possible, reducing the number of people in the work area

high standards of hand hygiene

increasing surface washing

assigning and keeping people to shift teams

using screens and barriers to separate people from each other”

They go on to say

“There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering is required as a precautionary measure.”

 

I’m not in construction, but some research the Gov guidance updated last week continues to state that no additional PPE is required (Now we all agree that a face cover is not PPE as it is collective protection). However, they also say if closer than 2m you need something else as well. Things like barriers are not practical in construction, smaller teams yes but it seems like the op was refereeing to teams of two anyway. So, the OP having done their assessment, has used the only option left face cover / mask, which is being specified and suggested in other areas trains buses, shops, hair dressers for staff and customers etc.

So mixed messages from the Gov, what a surprise! And that it was obvious from the start that they would need to be closer than 2m without any help of what employers should do. For years the HSE have been ducking out of producing industry guidance and leaving it to specific industry bodies. Now the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) are recommending that construction workers in confined spaces and less than 2m wear face coverings. When you also have not been hearing those on the number 72 bus at 8:32 all have to isolate or the morning train from Piccadilly are having to isolate adds IMHO weight to the fact that face covers help. So not difficult to see how the OP got to where they are.

Who is going to pay the wages, well the furlough scheme is running out, but does last to the end of Oct, so another 6 weeks? Now who knows what measures if any the Gov will put in by then, or more likely we will be back in a national lockdown anyway. But if people are unable to meet your safety controls and no alternative work is available, then it is a harsh world.

The more interesting question is: Bill has a problem with face covers, Bob is ok with face covers and is overweight and diabetic. Bob refused to work with Bill because he is not wearing a face cover? Do you stop the job and send them both home with no pay, fail on your contract and kill your business or do you just send one home (which one?). Alternatively, you say no covers required as Gov say they are not required and cross your fingers. A third possibility Kate also has issues with face covers, so Kate and Bob become a working team and hope you have even numbers of those that have problems with covers.

The question remains the OP asked “what are others doing”

A further question is, will the HSE accept that small working teams, who are fixed (so not in different team next week) will they view that the plus in the 1m plus advice and so make wearing covers optional ( but as you protect others when wearing, then you still have the scenarios above)

Lastly, I note you didn’t actually say what you feel the OP should do?

Chris

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 21/09/2020(UTC)
achrn  
#27 Posted : 21 September 2020 10:44:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: Chris Cahill Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Reference Roundtuit's comment re turban wearing Sikhs and helmets the exception extends a little beyond firefighters:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/6/enacted

But, in general the exception for construction sites has been removed.

Correction:  Sikhs still have their exception Check the HSE view

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/sikhs-head-protection.htm 

Q. Are turban wearing sikhs exempt from the need to wear head protection in the workplace

"YES . Sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989 as amended by Section 6 of the Deregulation Act 2015 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any legal requirement to wear head protection at a workplace. A workplace is defined broadly and means any place where work is undertaken including any private dwelling, vehicle, aircraft, installation or moveable structure (including construction sites).

Sorry for deviating from the main thread

Sikhs is used to have an exemption for helmets on construction sites.  That exemption was removed (the relevant legislation was repealed) but it was replaced (either simultaneously or previously, I don't recall) with an exemption that applied to turban-wearing Sikhs in (almost) any workplace.

So Sikhs did lose the construction site hard-hat exemption.  They gained a more general exemption.  The net effect is no change on construction sites, but it was a change in other workplaces.

Acorns  
#28 Posted : 21 September 2020 11:22:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Just going back to the OP.  Surely the idea of asking the employee to get a doctor's letter does 2 things - increases a burden on the doctor's services  and asks for something they can;t really provide a letter for.  That leads to a waste of time for the doctor and the employee along with loads of frustration.  
If the employee is goung to be asked for a Dr letter, you would have already had a good conversation with the employee.
Why not use that conversation as the satisfaction or otherwise that they don't need the face covering.  I might hazard the guess that someone in the hierachy is reluctant to say yah or nah and is passing the buck to the doctor.  

thanks 1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 21/09/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#29 Posted : 21 September 2020 12:42:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If I was forced to choose then it would be Bob with his underlying health issues going home as this would eliminate any possibility of work place exposure. His face covering is not providing personal protection and the efficiency of those coverings worn by others is questionable in the absence of any performance standard.

Roundtuit  
#30 Posted : 21 September 2020 12:42:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If I was forced to choose then it would be Bob with his underlying health issues going home as this would eliminate any possibility of work place exposure. His face covering is not providing personal protection and the efficiency of those coverings worn by others is questionable in the absence of any performance standard.

chris42  
#31 Posted : 21 September 2020 15:05:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

 Oops I mixed my Bill and Bob up at one point. That should obviously say Kate and Bill form a team as they both have issues, neither is potentially protecting the other.

Poor Bob, we will miss him.

Manion16110  
#32 Posted : 28 September 2020 10:40:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Manion16110

I had to visit a site. Temperature check was taken - I asked why. Was advised if I was 38 C I had COVID. It was lucky the temperature was 33 C - (this is hypotherma). I delayed entering site as I rushed carrying a larger back pack - so I belive I had elevated temperture. As I was a 'visitor' I had to wear a face coveing ALL THE TIME, when in office, WC, could not take fluid - as I was to be banned from site - if I removed the face covering. 

Two things - my view - a visitor was and would be all on site. Two if I could not take fluid - yes I could leave the site, however, I would not be allowed to return. 

A Kurdziel  
#33 Posted : 28 September 2020 10:49:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

This is about drivers but I can’t see why it does not apply to all visitors- https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/drivers-transport-delivery.htm?utm_source=hse.gov.uk&utm_medium=refferal&utm_campaign=coronavirus&utm_term=driver-welfare&utm_content=home-page-popular

So you have to provide welfare facilities to visitors covid or no covid.

PS if you core body temperature was 33 C you are two thirds-dead! 

Manion16110  
#34 Posted : 28 September 2020 11:16:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Manion16110

I undertand about the temp being 33C - site management thought I was being akward and they said if I do not like it I should leave site.

Roundtuit  
#35 Posted : 29 September 2020 08:44:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Use-of-Face-Coverings-in-Construction-during-Coronavirus.pdf

Another day, another update and yet another shift in position

Do have to ask though if my "face covering" visor is nothing more than a plastic sheet with headband not tested to any applicable harmonised European standard how is it PPE?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/09/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 29/09/2020(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#36 Posted : 29 September 2020 08:44:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Use-of-Face-Coverings-in-Construction-during-Coronavirus.pdf

Another day, another update and yet another shift in position

Do have to ask though if my "face covering" visor is nothing more than a plastic sheet with headband not tested to any applicable harmonised European standard how is it PPE?

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/09/2020(UTC), A Kurdziel on 29/09/2020(UTC)
Manion16110  
#37 Posted : 29 September 2020 16:50:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Manion16110

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. 

The actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. 

People who died from COVID-19 but had not tested positive are not included and people who died from COVID-19 more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included. 

Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary.

Roundtuit  
#38 Posted : 29 September 2020 18:46:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Near identical post in two different threads, three times - the point being?

Edited by user 29 September 2020 18:47:10(UTC)  | Reason: threads/posts

Roundtuit  
#39 Posted : 29 September 2020 18:46:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Near identical post in two different threads, three times - the point being?

Edited by user 29 September 2020 18:47:10(UTC)  | Reason: threads/posts

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.