Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Tim Davies
When an employer identifies a risk to the safety of employees and subsequently issues personal attack alarms, do such items come under PUWER or PPE?
Experience of many industries who take this 'preventative' measure evidences a quick fix hand out of alarms with no training, maintainence etc. What is the legislative arguement from the H&S professionals point of view?
Currently working with a national company, I am forcing the arguement for training and maintainance as such items must surely be covered by one or the other, particularly when brought in on the back of a risk assessment.
Look forward to replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Keith Archer.
Hi Tim,
I would treat personal attack alarms as PPE as they are for personal protection. With regards to training and maintenance of this equipment I would say that the employer is responsible under PPE regs 92. An example could be that respitory equipment is PPE under the PPE regs and not listed (as far as I am aware)under PUWER 98 and training must be provided in its use and maintanance. One point to note is that an employer cannot charge an employee for equipment provided for personal protection if a risk assessment has identified a need for this equipment. So I would approach from this angle.
Good Luck.
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Preston
I wouldn't treat Personal Attack Alarms as PPE simply because the guidance to the regulations tells me that I shouldn't. But I wouldn't issue them without appropriate training, and without satisfying myself that the issue of maintenance was covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Diane Warne
I agree with Mark - they are not PPE. The Guidance to the PPE regs explains what is regarded as PPE - they are all items that are worn on the body to form a barrier between the body and the hazard (eye protection, RPE, foot protection etc.) Alarms are a very different matter - they don't protect the person as such, they are just an aid to raising the alarm.
If they are provided as a result of risk assessment then they are part of the employer's arrangements for employees' health & safety. Employers are obliged by the Management Regs to provide safety training to enable emloyees to comply with employers' arrangements, and I would argue that training in these items is mandated on this basis.
Regards
Diane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Keith Archer.
Tim,
Here is some guidance that may help.
Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992.
Interpretation.
Regulation 2(1)
In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, "personal protective equipment" means all equipment (including clothing affording protection against weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health and safety, and any addition or accessory designed to meet that objective;
My interpretation of this is that a personal attack alarm is 1, Personal, 2, to an extent Protective, and 3, Equipment. However that said the PPE guidance also states,
Disapplication of these regulations
Regulation 3 guidance note 12 states:
The Regulations do not require employers to provide equipment for self defence or deterrent purposes, for example personal sirens/alarms or truncheons used by security staff. However they do apply to PPE (such as helmets or body armour) provided where staff are at risk from physical violence.
Again I still feel that if risk assessment has been carried out under reg 3 of the management regs and a need has been identified and the employer decides to issue personal alarms then he is obliged to provide training in its use and maintenance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tim Davies
Thanks for your replies.
As a point to note, I'm a personal safety consultant hence the enquiry. I should also point out that personal attack alarms should not be issued to 'raise the alarm'. They should be issued to distract the potential assailants thought process for a vital second or two creating a window to escape or adopt a suitable 'control measure'. Most companies issue such kit as knee jerk quick fix reactions to perceived risks without looking at the wider implications. I am grateful for the power to my elbow your advice provides.
many thanks
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.