Posted By Bob Pedley Steve, I have always worked on the "suitable and sufficient" approach. Yes PPE should be completely free but when it comes down to personal preferences you have to come up with a policy that works. I have had cases where people wanted Doc Martens against the standard boot and shoe we offered. In this case I asked for a doctor's note to justify the shoe. As regards rigger vs lace up - do you not have any chemcal hazards that would prohibit the use of rigger boots? At the end of the day you could ask people to pay the difference but when you look at the price differences these days it is hardly worth the effort that goes in to the administration. Our policy offers a high standard of PPE from the outset and we have found that most do not look for anything different. If you offer basic gear you will always get these complaints. I would suggest you review your policy and try and get good PPE for people rather than have your time wasted by complaints. Bob

Posted By Stuart Nagle As I understand it, the only stance on which an employer can make a charge for costs of PPE against an employee are if the PPE provided is not exclusively used in the employment e.g. a welding mask for instance may be be used by the employee at home for his own use!! In stating this, the PPE assessment must not only (and just) be based on the hazards at work, but must be assessed as suitable for the employee themselves and compatible with any other PPE or equipment that must be worn as well. Whilst some employers may object to certain types of PPE, perhaps on cost, this could also be a case for the employer in providing PPE that is suitable (as above), but not liked by the employee. Comfort should also be considered, especially with footwear, taking into account best fit etc, as feet are different for all persons and what suits one may not suit another e.g. width, instep height, toes rubbing etc.. ect... On the subject of deductions from wages. As far as I am aware no employer has a legal right to deduct money earned from the salary of an employee without their knowledge and consent. Stuart Nagle