Rank: New forum user 
|
Good morning all We have always provided agency staff with safety shoes if they turn up without them as it is in the RA. We are now in a situation where many agency staff stay maybe a day/week/month and take the safety shoes with them and do not return them. My employer wants to put in writing along the lines of "Should any of PPE supplied ( safety shoes/High Viz) not be returned as agreed, we then reserve the right to deduct the monetary amount to replace this item/items from your next weekly/monthly salary. Is this something that they can do? I would appreciate any advice
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ABSOLUTELY NOT - PPE must be supplied Free of Charge. If you do not want to fund the PPE then turn the worker away at the door as being unprepared. Just how does your boss propose to legally deduct monies from the wages of an individual who is actually paid by the agency from monies they have received from yourselves - It is not the same as getting an employee to sign an authorisation for a deduction from pay.
That £10/hour charge by the agency equates to something far less in the workers pay packet.
|
 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ABSOLUTELY NOT - PPE must be supplied Free of Charge. If you do not want to fund the PPE then turn the worker away at the door as being unprepared. Just how does your boss propose to legally deduct monies from the wages of an individual who is actually paid by the agency from monies they have received from yourselves - It is not the same as getting an employee to sign an authorisation for a deduction from pay.
That £10/hour charge by the agency equates to something far less in the workers pay packet.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you get the safety shoes back are you intending to give them out to someone else ? If you get them back just to be spiteful, then you end up with another waste stream to deal with. By the very nature of Agency working isn’t it short term work and I think the new legislation is to combat those that do the work having to pay for the things provided for their safety. It will become part of the agency costs which will get ultimately charged to the customers. The ultimate company will weigh up the cost of temporary v fully employed, taking this cost into account. I agree with the above you can’t charge for PPE either before or after it is supplied. Chris
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi Thank you to those of you who have responded already. No the company are not doing this to spite anyone - what they want to do is similar to a bowling alley where they spray shoes with anti fungal/anti bacterial spray between uses. I did not feel comfortable at all about the employer wanting to deduct the money from anyone which is why I asked the question. Like you have quite rightly stated most agency staff already have their own PPE so it is my opnion also that the cost of the PPE even if they did not return it would not be any kind of significant amount to the company Thank you again for your advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnsmith REPORTED hidden hyperlink
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnsmith REPORTED hidden hyperlink
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
......now let's see, what moniker shall I pick today for the IOSH Forums? I know, "johnsmith" which is so common a combination of fore and surnames that even Roundtuit won't be suspicious..... But, what happened?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I'm sure you can ask a chatbot to answer the question, "What user name could I choose that will not arouse suspicion?"
However, as usual, the answer may not be reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nothing to do with usernames although the more "common" the name the more the interest peaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nothing to do with usernames although the more "common" the name the more the interest peaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Back to the questiion. Set up the contracts with the Suppliers of 'workers' to include that if it is necessary to supply PPE Footware [or even all PPE], if it is not returned at the end of that workers 'stint' with you, then the costs will be deducted from the suppliers payments, when they bill you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The OP has not been on the forum since 2022 - thread resurrected by a spammer. Interesting proposition to dock the employment agency.
Someone forgets to return the kit, the agency to recoup charges seeks to dock the worker only the deductions then take the agency staff hourly rate below the minimum wage a matter for HMRC. Meanwhile having provided insufficient funding for minimum wage payment the agency back heels pay enquiries which sets your company in HMRC sights.
At the next round of negotiations the rates increase by the deductions achieving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The OP has not been on the forum since 2022 - thread resurrected by a spammer. Interesting proposition to dock the employment agency.
Someone forgets to return the kit, the agency to recoup charges seeks to dock the worker only the deductions then take the agency staff hourly rate below the minimum wage a matter for HMRC. Meanwhile having provided insufficient funding for minimum wage payment the agency back heels pay enquiries which sets your company in HMRC sights.
At the next round of negotiations the rates increase by the deductions achieving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.