Posted By Terry Hill How do you determine if workwear is either classed as uniform or PPE? If a healthcare worker is subject to possible daily exposure of bodily fluids e.g. blood, is there any regulations that force the employer to provide replacement uniforms at regular intervals or even at all?

Posted By Sean Fraser Terry, Quite simply, if the "uniform" is being provided to protect the employee from exposure to a hazard then it is quite simply PPE, and is therefore covered under Section 9 of the big one, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regs 1992 (although the latter don't refer to charging, they are raised through the enabling Act and hence this automatically applies without re-iteration). Just 'cos they all look the same doesn't make them a uniform!

Posted By Terry Hill Thanks for the reply's, I must admit to the lines being a bit blurred between the two. Would then a nurses uniform be classed as PPE? It conveys both a corporate image, rank and offers some protection against workplace hazards.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Just to 'muddy the water' - it is an interesting and contentious issue. For example, in my organisation Dr Martin shoes are provided for most employees, working in a railway environment they an essential item. However, they are not classified as PPE. A person can wear alternative footwear provided it meets the company standard of being black in colour and rubber soled. In theory at least, you can wear anything from Caterpillar boots to training shoes. Although managers may require a Doctor's note for the latter. Who said common sense does not prevail. Ray

Posted By Sean Fraser Alec, Not taking issue with your response, but I was curious as to why: 1] you, as a recognised and respected (and large!) employing company, have not reported the abuse indirectly to the HSE on behalf of those less likely to, and 2] why you would not seek to replace the agency with an alternate provider who does actually take due recognition of their legal responsibilities? Agency workers will be unwilling to jeopardise their prospects by complaining - of all those in the employment pecking order, they are the weakest and most under-supported of them all. Blacklisting, persecution, peer resentment - who'd willingly place themselves in that position? Not many, and each and every one that does is a true hero who would place principles above their own circumstances and the injustices they might suffer as a consequence. But it is easier to keep stumm - keep your head down and do your three monkeys, and you'll get by. Is getting by the best we can offer though? The agency is not being penalised for their intransigence - if anything, they will now feel they are being rewarded and hence justified for their actions and even less likely to deal with it. The agency worker has until recently been a much maligned and oft-abused creature, operating on the fringes of the vibrant economy we are persistently being reminded of by our political masters. It is no accident that the decrease in recorded unemployment co-incided with the increase in agency work - they were cheap disposable workers who provided employer with the "flexibility" to operate in a "competitive" economy. The damage to individual lives that this corporate philosophy has engendered is incalculable. And the long and bitter fight to give the agency worker the basic human dignity of employment protection showed up the attitudes of the agencies and in many cases the employers who used them - people were simply assets to be bought, sold or discarded as the whims of short-termism dictated. It was a good day for the British economy when these people finaly achieved the same basic minimums protecting their rights that we full-time employees have taken for granted for so long. The employers are the ones who have the power in this relationship, yet they often seem to abdicte their responsibilities by claiming they have little or no control over what the employment agencies do. Not true. For those who operate with a sense of fairness and ethical behaviour, they can eventually squeeze out these disreputable agencies and give the agency worker the assurance of fair and balanced treatment. Unfortunately, that would be a long-term goal and would cost money at the beginning, so who is willing to "take the hit" as others continue to mis-use their agnecy workers in the name of competition? Too few, and there in lies the problem. Whole industries are based on the agency or contract worker - nothing inherently wrong in that, as long as they are treated with the same respect and afforded the same conditions as direct employees expect and receive.