Posted By Stewart Dean
Don't think the HSE would look to kindly to this if there was an accident. They will point to the HSWA as the employee has a responsibility for their own health and safety and the employer has a duty to enforce the wearing of PPE where required.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Surely it depends very much on the waiver being signed and it's meaning.

If as you suggest someone signs a document saying "I accept responsibility for the consequences of not wearing PPE" - and one of those consequences is disciplinary action which is enforced by management, then it could be argued by lawyers that management have fulfilled their duties.

If however the waiver says somthing like "Management accept no responsibility for X occurring to employees". Then X does happen and it was evident in a court of law that management could have reasonably done more to prevent X from occurring (like for example disciplinary action or a whole host of other measures) then your waiver is probably worthless.

It's all to do with circumstance, semantics & who your lawyer is.

Ultimately if your safe system of work relies on a waiver, there is probably something wrong with it.

Apologies if this is a cynical point of view, but it should get the ball rolling at least.

Posted By Karen Todd
As mentioned, the waiver is no use in court. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, a person cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

I have heard of people being injured through not wearing their safety footwear, then they try to sue their employer for both breach of statutory duty and also for negligence, for not making them wear it.

Regards,
Karen

Posted By Robert M Edwards
A lot has been said about the law on this area and the clarity of the responsibility in law to ensure the wearing of PPE.

Getting an employee in a court case waiver in hand on a negligence claim would do the employer no good, as it would be proof in favour of the employee showing a problem which they, the employer both knoew about and had failed to rectify.

On a contractual (employment contract) basis the Health and Safety policy/rules should deal with the duty of employees to comply with H&S legislation imposed on the employer.

With persistant offenders who breach those rules and place themselves at risk then it can become a disciplinary and grievance issue.

Posted By Benedict Thierry
Hello,

Thanks to everyone for ther interest.

Jonathan - thanks you for the follow-up.

Just to clarify a point - the suggestion was made to my employer by a consultant being considered to do some works for the company.

Personally, I was horrified that a qualified & experienced person would even think such a thing let alone voice it as a serious option - but I was interested to see if it was a current technique being adopted or if it was something that had been tried & failed or whatever.

My understanding of HASWA sect. 2 is that it is an "absolute duty" on both the employer & the employee and this must be achieved in a co-operative way.

In the risk control hierachy PPE is not supposed to be the first and only option considered by the employer - but if the process has been gone through and other controls introduced as best possible and PPE is still considered a requirement I recognise that for the person doing the job this, in certain circumstances, can be perceived as a nuisance or an infringement of their freedoms or whatever.

But, then I ask, why do they bother to get up, why do they bother to get dressed, why do they bother to come to work and alot of other questions.

In other words - why are they picking on this and what's their problem?

The recent hot weather - umm.

Yes - heat does make the wearing of some items of PPE - but check this out with other occupations - firefighters, steelworks, repairing ovens (industrial sized walk - in), work in a glasshouse and many others I'm sure - and frankly, to me, the objection sounds pathetic.

The other item in this forum about the person with balance problems & the wearing of hearing protection I can see exactly the problem - the current design of hearing protection or is this an absolute design limit that unfortunately with current materials available etc is unavoidable and the only option is a change of occupation - this is not a unique situation but an unfortunate biological limiting fact of life.

As to Sean Frasers comment on safety footwear - with the number of manufacturers' in this market place, the number of designs & styles - I may question hoe thoroughly this question has been examined. For years I argued with manufacturers' about their lack of meeting the need for footwear built on lasts purpose designed for womens feet to be told it can't be done to meet the 200 joule, but easy for 100 joules - I have never accepted this as they could never provide evidence for this assertion - look around today.

Feet are a problem as people from different places in the world have different sized and shaped feet - but hey - modern times call for modern, inclusive manufacture and design - we may still be an island geographically but not in terms of diversty of populations.

Ethically - at the moment doctors are not legally allowed to assist in suicides - so how could an employer put themselves in circumstances where this may be argued as the outcome of their actions.

If the company can't muster a positive attitude to H&S I question is this a root problem or a means for those witout a say to raise their frustration at other root cause(s).

Then comes the dear old disciplinary codes - may as well face it - they have a place when dealing with unacceptable behaviours - and I think non- co-operation in the wearing of PPE needs to be challenged and this is probably the fairest way to do it.

Dave Wilson - your summary is ok with me on this.

Benedict

Benedict

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
So Benedict,



I think the body of opinion & experience out here is saying:

"You're wasting your time in drafting up a document that will be worthless in both contract & safety law and your management would be better employed making the wearing of PPE or otherwise a disciplinary matter."

This in fact backs up what you thought in the first place & you were right to stick to your guns.

Posted By Ian Lynch
the provision of PPE is not a question of choice in the your rish assessment you will have included providing and wareing PPE as a course of action to reduce and hopefuly eliminate the risk

It is there must be company policy that all employees adhere to the wareing of ppe
if employees are found not to adher to this then you can follow a course of action such as a verbal warning written warning then dismissal. PPE is a serious matter and not one looked likely on

You could not expect it to be ok if you were to say to someone that that scaffold is on safe but you can work on it if you sign this waver.

There for you can not expect it to be seen as ok if you permit some ome to work in an area or task that has clearly been assessed as a risk (must have been to say ppe is to be worn)with out PPE just cause theu signed a waver effectivly you have given promission to do so and you clearly know the danger which makes you neglagent

Posted By James Sneddon
Benedict,

Your company should make it a condition of employment that employees are required to co-operate with the employer for OH&S matters. Failing that they will be subjected to disciplinary action and possible summary dismissal.

Why go to all the effort of conducting the risk assessment for it to be ignored by means of a waiver?

At the end of the day the employer would still have to do everything as reasonably practicable to safe guard the H&S of its employees.

Jim

Posted By Dave Wilson
Quite right mate, when I mention 'disciplinary' action it of course means going through the proper process for this.